4 ms·

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 l

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.

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.