5 ms·

As a self proclaimed expert on reading comprehension, maybe reread my comment instead of spending 311 words being defensive about being caught getting the facts

As a self proclaimed expert on reading comprehension, maybe reread my comment instead of spending 311 words being defensive about being caught getting the facts wrong. I'll restate it for you: The crisis in building is bottom up. The senate has marginal relevance to most building, be it local housing or bigger infrastructure projects like bridges, airports, or dams. Even if the filibuster was eliminated, projects wouldn't proceed because there is enough local power to stop them. So calling out the senate is misplaced priority. You need to loosen up the local level first, then worry about getting more federal money flowing. I.e., "What percentage of 'building' is blocked because of a filibuster in the senate"? Not much. If you want proof, look back at 2009 when the Senate was willing to dump a ton of money into infrastructure, and nothing interesting got built. The money was directed into a bunch of non controversial road projects and maintenance that would have happened anyway.

throwawaygh 7y ago
I still can't figure out why you replied to a comment about the filibuster with a question about SFBA housing policy. The article doesn't make a direct causal link between the two. In fact, the article explicitly states that the filibuster isn't responsible for housing crises. The first sentence of the article's section on state and local housing makes it very clear that the author does not blame the senate filibuster for the housing crisis: If paralysis ended once you walked out of the Capitol, we wouldn’t have a housing crisis. We’d have better social insurance infrastructure. We’d have better infrastructure, period. But it doesn’t. I.e., if we had a senate filibuster but state and local governments didn't have other forms of vetocracies, then we wouldn't have a housing crisis. No one here thinks the filibuster is responsible for SFBA's housing issues. Not me, and certainly not the article. If you can't understand from the above quoted sentence that the author doesn't believe that getting rid of the senate filibuster would fix housing issues, then I'm not really sure how to help. Other than to suggest brushing up on your reading comprehension skills.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  I still can't figure out why you replied to a comment about the filibuster Because I disagree that the filibuster has a substantial negative impact of building projects of ANY kind. Which was literally what my initial comment was. You are fixating on housing but I mentioned many other building project types. I only mention housing because it is the type of project that is most affecting individuals right now.
  - throwawaygh 7y ago
    > Because I disagree that the filibuster has a substantial negative impact of building projects of ANY kind. Which was literally what my initial comment was. Again, who are you arguing against? Who is god's name do you think is saying that local building projects are stymied by the senate? The article doesn't just not make that claim, it explicitly makes the opposite claim. And not just for housing, but also for infrastructure.
    - WillPostForFood 7y ago
      You have a reading comprehension issue my friend. You apparently neither understand the article ("Why we can’t build" point #1 filibuster) nor my comment. Good luck to you in life, but might want to slow down, read throughly, study vocabulary. The article doesn't just not make that claim, it explicitly makes the opposite claim. And not just for housing, but also for infrastructure. No it doesn't, never once. It suggest the filibuster is the first tier of the problem, and if it went away, there are additional tiers of vetos.

throwawaygh 7y ago

I still can't figure out why you replied to a comment about the filibuster with a question about SFBA housing policy. The article doesn't make a direct causal link between the two. In fact, the article explicitly states that the filibuster isn't responsible for housing crises. The first sentence of the article's section on state and local housing makes it very clear that the author does not blame the senate filibuster for the housing crisis: If paralysis ended once you walked out of the Capitol, we wouldn’t have a housing crisis. We’d have better social insurance infrastructure. We’d have better infrastructure, period. But it doesn’t. I.e., if we had a senate filibuster but state and local governments didn't have other forms of vetocracies, then we wouldn't have a housing crisis. No one here thinks the filibuster is responsible for SFBA's housing issues. Not me, and certainly not the article. If you can't understand from the above quoted sentence that the author doesn't believe that getting rid of the senate filibuster would fix housing issues, then I'm not really sure how to help. Other than to suggest brushing up on your reading comprehension skills.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
I still can't figure out why you replied to a comment about the filibuster Because I disagree that the filibuster has a substantial negative impact of building projects of ANY kind. Which was literally what my initial comment was. You are fixating on housing but I mentioned many other building project types. I only mention housing because it is the type of project that is most affecting individuals right now.
- throwawaygh 7y ago
  > Because I disagree that the filibuster has a substantial negative impact of building projects of ANY kind. Which was literally what my initial comment was. Again, who are you arguing against? Who is god's name do you think is saying that local building projects are stymied by the senate? The article doesn't just not make that claim, it explicitly makes the opposite claim. And not just for housing, but also for infrastructure.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    You have a reading comprehension issue my friend. You apparently neither understand the article ("Why we can’t build" point #1 filibuster) nor my comment. Good luck to you in life, but might want to slow down, read throughly, study vocabulary. The article doesn't just not make that claim, it explicitly makes the opposite claim. And not just for housing, but also for infrastructure. No it doesn't, never once. It suggest the filibuster is the first tier of the problem, and if it went away, there are additional tiers of vetos.