You could erase the US from the map — Nobeernolife

Oh, to dream....

From the picture you've been painting you seem to be doing generally alright. Sure, maybe a 600k house is a little out of your range but you seem to be financially secure with a nice emergency fund and decent savings. You mentioned you have disposable income and you're able to go out to eat whenever you want which is really nice. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, I do have it much better than a lot of other people, which is part of the point I’m making about the problem being systemic. And part of why I have it so much better is because I’m constantly fighting and sacrificing to beat the system, living in shitty conditions to stay way below market costs so I can otherwise have this security, where if I just went out and rented a market-rate apartment I’d be scraping by check to check.

And the point of complaint isn’t that a specific price point of house is out of my reach, but that ANY house available for purchase (not a MH on rented land) in a very very broad area is out of my reach, and consequently out of reach of almost everybody else in that area, who mostly do barely scrape by check to check. I can easily buy a big enough structure; a simple add-on to the MH I already own would suffice. But even an empty plot of land to park and build that on would cost hundreds of thousands, and you can’t get a mortgage on an empty plot of land, if anyone were even to sell one of the right (small enough) size.

It should not be an unreasonable stretch goal for most people to own a place to live some time before they die. But evidently it is, and somehow everyone has normalized this concept of being indebted to whoever owns their land from adulthood to grave. It’s insane.

I understand you want the house but you know the mortgage on that thing is going to be a constant stressor and much more than what you're paying now for the land — BitconnectCarlos

If I tried to mortgage right now it would be yeah, which is why I need to save a ton of money for a huge downpayment in order to make it manageable. I basically have to pre-pay-off over half the house in order for “buying” (mortgaging) to not delay the day I have something paid off even longer than renting + saving already will take.

I live in a 1 bedroom apartment so I figure we probably live in similarly-sized areas and I'm honestly perfectly happy with mine. I think even if I had a partner 700 square feet is fine for me. — BitconnectCarlos

Your apartment is about 2/3 bigger than my trailer, so yeah if I had that much space it would be fine to live together. The difference between your place and mine is almost 3X the size of my girlfriend’s rented bedroom.

It's just hard to me to try to sympathize with you when you're able to go out to eat whenever you want. — BitconnectCarlos

See above about that only being possible because I’m living way below market rates and making way more than other people in an attempt to beat this system (and still not sure I will ever succeed at that). Most other people in the area are not so fortunate. Which is my whole point: I’m not the sob story myself, I’m just a clear demonstration of how much of a sob story the whole system is if EVEN SOMEONE LIKE ME may never end up owning just a place to sit and starve to death without getting kicked out when I inevitably run out of steam and stop kicking so much ass.

I accidently ended up watching some CNN today. An analyst pointed out that a high percentage of Bernie supporters don't remember anything about the Cold War. They remember 911, the 2008 crisis, Obama and Trump, but nothing about the Berlin Wall or anything like that.

I think that probably is part of the divide. It's a different set of fears. — frank

The most recent Politico demographic breakdown shows that Bernie supporters were 40% more likely to be ages 30-44 and 96% more likely to be ages 18-29 than all Democratic voters, so yes they don't have Communist Russia as a boogyman and having been either born during or after Reagan's neoliberal shift, they haven't benefited from Capitalism in the way their parents, who were born during the post-war boom, did. Also they will be affected by climate change in ways their 60+ YO parents won't be.

That's fair, but all of that is minor compared to '16. Sanders was a relatively unknown candidate at the beginning, came out of nowhere, and so they didn't quite know how to handle him. They thought they could just sweep him aside without much backlash. They were obviously wrong. — Xtrix

I'm impressed by the Bernie-mania right now. Suddenly everyone's realized all at once that his candidacy is for real. None of the other candidates inspire much enthusiasm. Bloomie's face-plant and Bernie's huge win in Nevada have snapped everything into focus. The only viable candidate is Bernie and he commands an army of true believers. His campaign is being compared to Trump's in 2016.

If you are saying that the DNC won't be able to screw him because it would be too obvious, I respectfully stand by my cynicism. But I am definitely impressed by the post-Nevada vibe in the country. Latinos and African-Americans came out for Bernie Sanders, a 68 year old Jewish guy from a virtually all-white state. It's something to behold. It's what this country's all about.

It's four years later and almost everyone knows what happened. You have Trump tweeting about it at this point. And Sanders is now the clear frontrunner, so there's no excuse of "Well Hillary won fair and square, the so-called Revolution didn't show up!" and so forth. It's very different -- this time, the DNC is aware that everyone is watching closely and will be livid if there are any shenanigans. The media is slightly better at covering it as well this time around, as they can't ignore Sanders' numbers. They aren't stupid, they must see this. — Xtrix

And yet I read a story just today ... Dick Morris, who's always been a conservative strategist but worked in the Bill Clinton administration and has seen the Clintons close up and personal, says that Bloomberg is just a fakeout. That explains why he doesn't even bother to pretend to be campaigning for president. He doesn't do interviews or campaign events, doesn't bother to prep for his debate, just throws fabulous sums of money at ad buys. All he wants to do is get enough delegates to keep Bernie from getting to Milwaukee with a majority. Once that happens and the convention is hopelessly deadlocked (because the superdelegate party insiders will get behind Bloomie but he still won't get near a majority either); then WHO can possibly come in and be the one person to unify the party?

That's right: As I call her, She Who Must Not Be Indicted: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dick Morris thinks that this is exactly the plan. So if I'm cynical about the lengths the Dem establishment will go to in order to stop Bernie ... I'm not alone.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/02/23/dick-morris-hillary-clinton-will-get-the-nomination-in-a-brokered-convention/

Bottom line: Even as Bernie surges into a national phenomenon ... the plotting continues.

You could be right, in the end. But I both think and hope that you're wrong. — Xtrix

I saw a striking photo of Bernie surrounded by his crazed and adoring young fans. And you know what I thought as I saw their faces? How devastated and crushed and angry and heartbroken they're all going to be when the DNC steals the nomination from Bernie.

I will say this is great entertainment. Suddenly there's excitement on the Dem side. Liz destroying Bloomie so that Bernie can surge. Could that be part of a plan too? Maybe she's hoping to be his Veep. It would be a great ticket. Not one I'd vote for, but it would be a hell of an interesting election.

excellent article, thank you!

How devastated and crushed and angry and heartbroken they're all going to be when the DNC steals the nomination from Bernie — fishfry

And how they will not vote next November, to show their frustration.

I tried to mortgage right now it would be yeah, which is why I need to save a ton of money for a huge downpayment in order to make it manageable. I basically have to pre-pay-off over half the house in order for “buying” (mortgaging) to not delay the day I have something paid off even longer than renting + saving already will take. — Pfhorrest

I don't fully follow your numbers. You save 75% of your income and you won't buy a home until you can make a 50% down payment? This points to either (1) low income and fear of a high mortgage, (2) unrealistically financially conservative. (3) credit problems, or (4) residing in a very affluent unaffordable area. You seem to suggest it's 4, but that you're in a trailer suggests otherwise (sorry, but true). What area are you from?

It might also be 2, based upon your statement that you think the goal of buying is to outright own. The goal of buying is to accumulate equity and hence wealth, as well as to get tax benefits, regardless of whether you eventually pay off the mortgage.

I think it'd be a struggle to survive at $200k per year at that tax rate if I insisted upon squirreling away $150k per year (75%), especially if I had a family and other mouths to feed, even though $200k would be considered quite wealthy.

I

Latinos and African-Americans came out for Bernie Sanders, a 68 year old Jewish guy — fishfry

ahem, 78. The difference might matter.

Old. Ancient really.

I don't fully follow your numbers. You save 75% of your income — Hanover

I don't know where you got that 75% figure from. Maybe the bit where I said somewhere earlier about only spending a quarter of my income disposably? Which both you and Carlos seem to have misinterpreted, but differently: I meant that that is the portion of my take-home income which is neither dedicated to fixed costs that I can't reduce (basically rent and bills) nor left over to save. That doesn't mean it's the only money I spend (like you seem to interpret it), nor that that's my free happy fun time party money (like Carlos seemed to interpret it), but that it's the part of my budget that's flexible, in that I could spend more or less on it. It's basically split pretty evenly between food and gas, as I said earlier, and all other non-fixed irregular expenses (like car repair and dental work, etc) make up the negligible rest of it. As I said earlier, my budget is roughly 1/8 food, 1/8 gas, 1/6 bills (mostly medical insurance), 1/4 rent, 1/3 savings toward future housing.

This points to either (1) low income and fear of a high mortgage — Hanover

I have a statistically high income, as I've repeatedly said; I make about the mean income, which is twice the median income, or nearly four times the mode income, and falls at around the 75th percentile of incomes.

I am afraid of a high mortgage inasmuch as that means spending even more on interest than I am already spending on rent, because at my current rate of savings it's not entirely clear that I will ever be able to save enough to pay off a house, and if I was mortgaging with a higher interest than my current rate, then that rate of "savings" (diverted directly into equity on the house, which is fine since the savings are earmarked for a house anyway) would be even lower and make it pretty much certain that I will never finish paying anything off. In order to avoid that, I need to borrow little enough that the interest does not exceed my current rent, which means paying off a huge portion of the house up front.

Look at the numbers: currently about 25% of my income goes to rent and 33% goes toward eventual equity. If I started mortgaging the cheapest place in the area now, the interest alone would easily be over 50% of my income, leaving at most about 8% to go toward equity, probably less. Meaning it would take about four times longer to pay something off (which means effectively never as I barely expect to pay anything off in my lifetime as it is now).

(2) unrealistically financially conservative. — Hanover

What is unrealistic? When I complain about this housing issue everyone always says "work harder, work smarter, spend less, budget more". I've spent most of my adult life feeling guilty for not working hard enough, not spending little enough, because of people saying things like that. It wasn't until my current girlfriend (of nearly a decade now) talked me into believing that I could fit things into the budget like a trash can for the bathroom, or a new vacuum cleaner that isn't duct-taped together, that I stopped living like a starving student and working myself to death and decided to actually enjoy life a little bit along the way instead of waiting until I retire to live... and now Carlos is telling me I need to get a side hustle and budget more. So which is it, too conservative or not conservative enough? Should I go back to living off stale bread and water again so I can allocate whatever 10% or so of my income I spend on food toward saving for housing instead, or should I let myself splurge on a place big enough that I can marry and live with my girlfriend at the cost of spending more than half of my income on mortgage interest alone and therefore dying in the street when I'm too old to pay rent anymore?

(3) credit problems — Hanover

I have excellent credit. Well, technically a few points shy of the top "Excellent" category of FICO score, but zero debt, decades of on-time payments, etc.

or (4) residing in a very affluent unaffordable area. You seem to suggest it's 4, but that you're in a trailer suggests otherwise (sorry, but true). What area are you from? — Hanover

As I've said, I'm in Ventura county, California. And yes, I live in a trailer park, because that was the most economical way to get out of renting a bedroom in someone else's house full of ever-changing assholes I had no control over, which is how I lived my entire adult life prior to that. Market rate on a 1br apartment about the size of my trailer runs well over 2X, easily 3X my lot rent here. Because MH lots are rent-controlled, I've managed to keep my costs down close to what they were on the bedroom before, while the cost of even a rented bedroom like I used to live in now easily goes for nearly 2X what I'm paying here.

And this is not a problem restricted to just my "city" (I don't live in a city, I live in unincorporated countryside) nor my county. This is a problem that affects pretty much the entirety of the populated parts of the state. There are some places where you can buy a plot of land for $1000, but that's for good reason. Everywhere people actually live and jobs and civilization are found, it's like this. Looking at neighboring states, it doesn't seem much better; my job relocated to Oregon (I telecommute now) and the boss was telling me to move there too because it was so much cheaper, but I looked at the prices and it's really not, and the weather there would leave me an emotional wreck, never mind leaving behind everything else in my life, including the woman I want to marry who would be even more ruined by leaving our home than me.

It might also be 2, based upon your statement that you think the goal of buying is to outright own. The goal of buying is to accumulate equity and hence wealth, as well as to get tax benefits, regardless of whether you eventually pay off the mortgage. — Hanover

That is completely backwards. The point of wealth is to own the things you need so you don't have to pay someone else to borrow them from them. I am accumulating wealth, much faster than I would be if I was mortgaging a house right now (see the math above), and I am accumulating that toward the goal of eventually getting to stop paying to borrow someone else's land to live on. And I am succeeding at that far better than a supermajority of people, and yet still not sure I will ever actually succeed, which tells me that this is not a problem with me, this is a systemic problem.

Look at it this way. It seems to me a fairly reasonable, quite minimal thing to expect that:

- for any "commutable area" (an area of such a size that a typical person, i.e. a person making about the mode income, could reasonably live on one end of it and work on the other end of it with the kind of transportation affordable to them, which I'd estimate is about a 100 mile diameter with today's technology and infrastructure);
for any such area, ...

- the typical person in that area (meaning again, someone making about the mode income, which the statistics tell me is about the income of a full-time minimum-wage job for the US nationally, though the California minimum wage is significantly higher and yet the median income is about that of a full-time CA-minimum-wage job, which suggests to me that most people here are under-employed);
such a person ...

- should be able to finish paying off housing sufficient for at least one person (or two if we expect them to have children, which would mean a bathroom, kitchen, an open area like a living room, and one or two closed areas like bedrooms, which means, assuming about 10ftx10ft per room on average, obviously with some variance between them, about 400-500sqft in total);
should be able to pay off such a house ...

- by the time they could have grown kids (so mid-late 30s to early-mid 40s).

I am about that age. I have always made at least twice that income, and currently make about four times it. I finally own a structure about that size, but on rented land, and it's uncertain if I will ever be able to afford anything on its own land. My girlfriend is also that age, has always made about that mode income, and owns nothing whatsoever. My parents are 25 years older than us and they both own practically nothing (my mom literally nothing, my dad is complicated but suffice to say he won't leave any estate that I could inherit). Her parents are more like 30-35 years older than us and they just recently, as their grandkids are almost grown, finished paying off something about twice that size (so appropriate for a couple with children). And that situation her parents worked out is an enviable dream to our generation, but yet still pretty unreasonable by any objective standard; they spent basically their entire lives dedicating the bulk of their income just to the task of not owing anybody money for the right to exist somewhere. But they at least succeeded, whereas it's not clear that I, or the 75% of people who are worse off than me, ever will.

And that is a sign that something somewhere has gone horribly wrong. I have my ideas about what, but arguing for those ideas isn't nearly as important as people just recognizing that there is a problem in the first place.

Back on actual topic (maybe this housing stuff should be split into its own thread?), after this weekend's Nevada caucus FiveThirtyEight is showing Bernie with basically even odds on getting the nomination by majority vote, with Bloomie tanking hard now, so Biden back to heir apparent should it come to a brokered convention. I agree that Bernie/Warren is the way to go, and I hope that just prior to the convention she throws her delegated to Bernie and he picks her as his VP. Having the first female VP would attract a lot of the crowd that were behind Hillary just for the milestone factor, while simultaneously pleasing a lot of the Bernie supporters as her policy positions are quite similar to his in many ways and she's got similar fire and passion for justice too.

And once again for the 5th time, i agree with you that an absolute free market has never existed. You would really like to twist that notion wouldn't you. I have to leave in 10 minutes.

And the point of complaint isn’t that a specific price point of house is out of my reach, but that ANY house available for purchase (not a MH on rented land) in a very very broad area is out of my reach, and consequently out of reach of almost everybody else in that area, who mostly do barely scrape by check to check.

Just curious, what's your solution to this problem? Should homeowners not be allowed to decide which price to sell at?

If I tried to mortgage right now it would be yeah, which is why I need to save a ton of money for a huge downpayment in order to make it manageable. I basically have to pre-pay-off over half the house in order for “buying” (mortgaging) to not delay the day I have something paid off even longer than renting + saving already will take.

I think you're viewing it wrong. I want to show you a podcast a successful real estate investor sent me. The goal isn't to pay off the mortgage ASAP and therefore have no more payments (which even then isn't true you'll always have payments.) But seriously that money could be invested in much, much better places than in a house.

The podcast that was sent to me was "Get Rich Education: With Keith Weinhold" it's an apple podcast it's #6 "Here's why you aren't financially free" and it directly addresses this question of financially free vs debt-free.

If it makes anyone feel better, Jimmy Carter is 95, and the previous presidents down to Ford died in their mid-90s,

Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand.
— Xtrix

I am looking, and I do not understand how his "position on climate change" the "policies enacted under his administration" are an "existential threat". Can you explain? — Nobeernolife

Yes. Climate change is an existential risk to the human species. The Trump administration has appointed people with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry to head the EPA, rolled back (or is trying to roll back) regulations on carbon emission standards, including methane. Trump has himself claimed climate change is a "hoax" from the Chinese and has repeatedly stated he wants to bring back coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. He's approved pipelines, weakened environmental reviews, and pulled out of the Paris Accord (making us the only country not in it). I could go on. There's plenty of documentation of this if you're interested -- no need to take my word for it. Trump isn't trying to hide it, because he believes there isn't even a problem to begin with.

So here we have an existential threat that's being exacerbated by the policies and ignorance of this administration. Thus, the administration on this issue alone is a clear existential threat to the country and the world.

To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment.

I'm impressed by the Bernie-mania right now. — fishfry

I think he has a chance to win Trump. I hope that finally the Dems can pick a good candidate, not a bad candidate like Hillary.

If Bernie wins Trump, I think he will be like Lopez Obrador. Mexico hasn’t gone the way of Venezuela, even if the President is a leftist. And likely won’t the US either, even if the GOP will portray a Sanders ”regime” putting the US on the road to Venezuela like socialism.

If you are saying that the DNC won't be able to screw him because it would be too obvious, I respectfully stand by my cynicism. But I am definitely impressed by the post-Nevada vibe in the country. Latinos and African-Americans came out for Bernie Sanders, a 68 year old Jewish guy from a virtually all-white state. It's something to behold. It's what this country's all about. — fishfry

Needless to say I agree, except with the cynicism. I'm more optimistic in that case...or maybe more "hopeful." Time will tell.

That's right: As I call her, She Who Must Not Be Indicted: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dick Morris thinks that this is exactly the plan. So if I'm cynical about the lengths the Dem establishment will go to in order to stop Bernie ... I'm not alone. — fishfry

Now here I really disagree. This is wild speculation and I see no evidence for it. It's true that Bloomberg is throwing a lot of money around, but that it's part of a conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton? Come on.

I will say this is great entertainment. Suddenly there's excitement on the Dem side. Liz destroying Bloomie so that Bernie can surge. Could that be part of a plan too? Maybe she's hoping to be his Veep. It would be a great ticket. Not one I'd vote for, but it would be a hell of an interesting election. — fishfry

Not one you'd vote for? Given the alternative and the importance of this election? That's mind boggling. I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump. One believes in climate change, the other doesn't. That's enough of a reason right there.

And once again for the 5th time, i agree with you that an absolute free market has never existed. You would really like to twist that notion wouldn't you. — christian2017

I never said "absolute." Not once. So who's twisting things?

If you want to argue a relativity of freedom of the markets, located on some technical notion of "spectrum," you're welcome to. But that's completely irrelevant.

The fact remains our economy is a mixed one, with massive state intervention on all levels. Again, this is a fact.

It's on a spectrum too. As are you, apparently.

Just curious, what's your solution to this problem? Should homeowners not be allowed to decide which price to sell at? — BitconnectCarlos

Nothing so crude as that. I think the problem traces back to much deeper systemic problems involving rent and interest which create a pressure away from center (pushing the rich richer and the poor poorer) in proportion to the relative scarcity (demand per supply) of whatever the market is for. That would undoubtedly turn into a very long argument (that I think we might have had already elsewhere), but the short version of the conclusion of it is:

The existence of rent and interest (caused by government enforcement of the contracts that create them) drives up demand for housing by the rich, who view it as an investment vehicle, and thus drives the price of it out of range of the poor, who need it to live in, and must instead rent and borrow, fueling the returns on those rich people's investments, and perpetuating (and exacerbating) the cycle. The world that I envision in place of what we have now is ultimately one very similar to what we have now, but where all payments for housing go toward equity, you can't profit from letting someone else borrow your property so instead your best option is to sell it, but for that same reason nobody buys housing for someone else to live in just as an investment anymore, and thus the cost of housing comes down to what the remaining market of people who just need it to live in can bear, and thus that housing ends up owned by the people who live in it.

I have extensive thoughts on the exact details of how a world like that would be implemented and the objections you're probably screaming right now can be circumvented, but that's a very long conversation because I have to unravel all of the assumptions everyone takes for granted and why they don't have to be that way. But the short version of that is: starting buying something (in installments) needn't be more difficult than starting renting something, nor do the size of the payments need to be different, and if what you want is the convenience of renting, you're always free to walk away from the thing you've been paying for and let the seller keep it and your money, like the owner would if you were renting. So if people want something like rent, they can easily get it, but if someone would rather be buying something and currently has no option but to rent, under my scheme they would accumulate equity and eventually get to stop paying.

I think you're viewing it wrong. I want to show you a podcast a successful real estate investor sent me. The goal isn't to pay off the mortgage ASAP and therefore have no more payments (which even then isn't true you'll always have payments.) But seriously that money could be invested in much, much better places than in a house.

The podcast that was sent to me was "Get Rich Education: With Keith Weinhold" it's an apple podcast it's #6 "Here's why you aren't financially free" and it directly addresses this question of financially free vs debt-free. — BitconnectCarlos

I never listen to podcasts, so I don't know how to find or listen to that, and I'd really prefer a text source for time efficiency if you have one, or can at least summarize it.

In any case, I am currently investing that money somewhere other than a house, and I have considered the possibility of, rather than putting that money into equity when it's enough, using the returns on those investments to offset the cost of rent or mortgage interest. Basically grow my investments until they pay my current rent (even that is a ridiculous bar to reach right now), and then allow myself to move somewhere with higher rent (or mortgage interest) once I have the return on other investments to offset that. That does sound like a better solution, in the context of our current economic system at least, but I'm not certain whether it will delay the time before my girl and I can move in together and thus get married even further than the current plan.

And once again for the 5th time, i agree with you that an absolute free market has never existed. You would really like to twist that notion wouldn't you.
— christian2017

I never said "absolute." Not once. So who's twisting things?

If you want to argue a relativity of freedom of the markets, located on some technical notion of "spectrum," you're welcome to. But that's completely irrelevant.

The fact remains our economy is a mixed one, with massive state intervention on all levels. Again, this is a fact.

It's on a spectrum too. As are you, apparently. — Xtrix

I'm on a spectrum? Which ones are you referring too? Were all on various spectrums. Do you work in retail or food service? I can understand why you would hate capitalism in that case. However i feel embracing socialism would piss off those who feel they are fiscally conservative but in reality are not fiscally conservative. And i used the word absolute along with free market because you don't seem to think that the free market concept can be put on a spectrum.

rent and interest which create a pressure away from center (pushing the rich richer and the poor poorer) in proportion to the relative scarcity — Pfhorrest

It occurs to me, to make this a little more philosophically relevant, that this is essentially an issue of dealing with the Lockean proviso. The Lockean system of property and contracts that underlies the whole modern world works great so long as there is "enough and as good" left over for others to go and and get for themselves, as Locke himself said. So for people who live in Bumfuck Nowhere where there's plenty of equally shitty land for hundreds of miles in every direction, there isn't a problem of how to ethically handle scarcity, because there effectively isn't scarcity; that's why I could easily buy several suburban blocks of land in California City, where nobody wants to live. When there isn't enough and as good to go around, though, then the economic system is tested, and possibly breaks down if it isn't built to handle that right. I think rent and interest are the flaw of capitalism that causes it to break down in the face of scarcity. It works fine enough when there's a go-to solution to scarcity: go make more. But as of this writing, we can't yet make more land, and there it breaks down.

So in the places where lots of people live, their biggest economic factor is necessarily scarce, so people in those places more readily face the failures of our capitalist economic system and call for policies ameliorating them. — Pfhorrest

Interesting theory. And here I thought I was joking about Republicans bringing down property values...turns out it is low property values creating the conditions for more Republicans.

The more I think about it, the more reasonable it sounds. I can't think of any counter-examples...so it seems it must be somewhat accurate.(red portions of blue states - like CA - are typically wealthy enough that they are not worried about high housing costs {like orange county} / blue portions of red states - like Texas - are typically more popular places to live with higher property values {like Austin}). Interesting.

Latinos and African-Americans came out for Bernie Sanders, a 68 year old Jewish guy
— fishfry

ahem, 78. The difference might matter. — Wayfarer

Yes thanks. I wonder why I didn't catch my typo. I think I somehow can't believe a 78 year old who had a heart attack a few months ago is the likely nominee and is surrounded by screaming youngsters like a rock star.

I think he has a chance to win Trump. I hope that finally the Dems can pick a good candidate, not a bad candidate like Hillary. — ssu

I believe Bernie could have beaten Trump in 2016. I don't think he can beat him in 2020 unless there is a humongous economic collapse. And there is currently a seriously nonzero probability exactly that. The Fed's been blowing bubbles of digital money into the system since the last financial crisis, which in effect never actually went away. It just got papered over, literally. When the bill comes due it will be a crash the likes of which the world has never seen. That's the theory, anyway. Maybe coronavirus has already triggered it. If it happens, Bernie can win.

If the economy stays good, Trump wins.

If Bernie wins Trump, I think he will be like Lopez Obrador. Mexico hasn’t gone the way of Venezuela, even if the President is a leftist. And likely won’t the US either, even if the GOP will portray a Sanders ”regime” putting the US on the road to Venezuela like socialism. — ssu

You know that's a very interesting point. Lopez Obrador has been called the Bernie Sanders of Mexico. And you are exactly right, people call him a socialist but he's actually a pragmatic populist. However I don't believe Bernie is the same! Bernie's a dangerous true believer IMO. I think a Bernie presidency would be a disaster on a historic scale.

If you are saying that the DNC won't be able to screw him because it would be too obvious, I respectfully stand by my cynicism. But I am definitely impressed by the post-Nevada vibe in the country. Latinos and African-Americans came out for Bernie Sanders, a 68 year old Jewish guy from a virtually all-white state. It's something to behold. It's what this country's all about.
— fishfry

Needless to say I agree, except with the cynicism. I'm more optimistic in that case...or maybe more "hopeful." Time will tell. — Xtrix

I'm a glass half empty type. But this is the DNC we're talking about. The courting of the superdelegates is well under way. And there's no law that says Bloomberg can't just buy them.

Dick Morris thinks that this is exactly the plan. So if I'm cynical about the lengths the Dem establishment will go to in order to stop Bernie ... I'm not alone.
— fishfry

Now here I really disagree. This is wild speculation and I see no evidence for it. It's true that Bloomberg is throwing a lot of money around, but that it's part of a conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton? Come on. — Xtrix

Wild speculation has its place. It lets us explore the boundary between the possible and the unlikely. Dick Morris has known the Clintons a long time.

Not one you'd vote for? Given the alternative and the importance of this election? — Xtrix

I'm not a socialist.Not even a democratic socialist. The US got its wealth through a system Bernie wants to destroy. He has no understanding of the economy at all. It would be insane for him to be president. The alternative is Trump. I have come to see Trump as a highly flawed but historic figure. In the past three years he's shown the world how corrupt the media and the Democratic party are. You think that's only right wing spin. I used to be a left winger. It's spin I believe because I watched it happen and I think for myself. I stand with Trump, warts and all. As opposed to what's become of the Dems. And Bernie? No no no no no. Unbelievable that an ignorant guy like that could be in charge of the country.

That's mind boggling. — Xtrix

A lot of liberals just don't get it. I used to be a liberal. I'm off the reservation. Just how it is. I'm not alone. A lot of former liberals are in shock at what's become of our former side. So yeah, I'm mind boggled too.

I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump. — Xtrix

Bloomberg and Clinton are exactly why the public wants Trump and Bernie. You cling to the neoliberal consensus perhaps because you don't know how truly evil it's become. Didn't the Iraq war teach you anything?

One believes in climate change, the other doesn't. That's enough of a reason right there. — Xtrix

The US under Trump led the world in reducing CO2 emissions last year. So even on the facts you're wrong. Trump is not anti-environment. That's just something Rachel told you.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/us-led-world-in-reducing-co2-emissions

To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment. — Xtrix

No, it is not. US policy does not determine the world climate.
If I assume that all the wild-eyed claims about global warming being solely caused by human burning of fossil fuels were true, it would not matter who is US president and what policy he makes. You could have Trump entact 100% of the most radical green agenda, and it would not make any difference.

The world is a lot bigger than the US, and the approx. 1100 bb of proven oil reserves (maybe double that including fracking) will be consumed regardless. Or do you think India, China, and Africa (heading towards a population of 4 billion within the next 50 years) give a wet fart about what the policy the US has?

To assume that a US president can determine the world`s climate is simply megalomania.

For starters, the US doing 100% of what it originally promised, it would make about 15% difference. The problem with these kind of issues is normally that nobody wants to be a first mover afraid of making more costs than others. The USA, however, is in the interesting position that if it moves others will follow.

Second, locally it makes sense as well as it will lower pollution significantly if you move to alternative fuel sources and improve air quality (particularly due to reduced particulates). Investing in energy saving measures is even better as it will result in long term benefits freeing up resources (both money and fossil fuels) for other uses.

What Xtrix is saying is blatantly false. Trump is not responsible for climate change. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.

And the center is not evil. Meeting in the middle is how democracy works. It's normal to get frustrated that things aren't the way they should be, but we're better off facing our problems together than becoming polarized and thus unable to deal with anything.

We will stand together. That's who we are.

First off, Xtrix didn't say that, he said this particular administration exacerbates the problem of global warming due to its policies. Second, I reacted to Nobeernolife claim that doing everything in his power wouldn't make a difference. So in short: whut?

First off, Xtrix didn't say that, he said this particular administration exacerbates the problem of global warming due to its policies. Second, I reacted to Nobeernolife claim that doing everything in his power wouldn't make a difference. So in short: whut? — Benkei

I stand corrected. We are not debating whether Trump is responsible for global warming. None of us are that deluded. Whew!

We're just saying that it sure would be nice if the Trump administration would take global warming seriously and contribute constructively (with maybe funding research on finding the path that would help the most).

Absolutely. You're right.

Some ideas:

Promoting carbon farming
Isolating older buildings, particularly in poor neighbourhood
Carbon tax to internalise costs that are now externalised