4 ms·

In America, we stopped being objective a while ago and everything is "The other side is out to get us. Other side BAD". One side there are people who are pissed

In America, we stopped being objective a while ago and everything is "The other side is out to get us. Other side BAD". One side there are people who are pissed because they had to pay off loans and why should kids get it for free now while the other side is crying about the uncontrollable rising costs of education where a History Major costs $80K for 4 years. No one is looking at this problem objectively which is to understand why and where the costs are rising and how we can control it instead of just band aids.

PaulHoule 4y ago
'Affordable housing' is a euphemism for "unaffordable housing that is subsidized". Democrats refuse to see the problem (if the residents can't afford it, can the rest of us?) and Republicans just hope that if they don't build "affordable housing" the residents will go to some other town. One angle is that adding more money makes things more expensive. If the money isn't there then people will do with less or do without. People have long been concerned that student loans contribute to increasing tuition and the evidence is accumulating for that https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...
- specialist 4y ago
  codegeek wrote: > No one is looking at this problem objectively... I know it appears that way. But there are 100s of orgs working every single issue from all sides. It's very, very challenging for these elites (experts) to get any attention. Death of journalism. Everyone's already overwhelmed. There's a zillion issues to care about. Consequently, most issue central orgs now focus on direct lobbying. FWIW, I was a serious activist (2004-2012). Media was a huge time sink. In retrospect, I wish we'd just focused on lobbying. Paul Houle wrote: > Democrats refuse to see the [housing] problem... I have friends working on housing issues. Policy people absolutely understand the shape and scope. And the developers I've spoken with (casually, not policy work) do too and have been clear eyed about the situation. My local party org does dozens of endorsement interviews every year. Housing has long been a hot issue. The sad truth is that NIMBY has been the norm. It's a mistake to think "Democrats" are left-wing, or are as "progressive" as we'd hope. Being "progressive" is usually on just 1 or 2 issues. Like a candidate who has been awesome on LBGTQ issues being utterly opposed to upzoning. (Further, my town now only elects "Democrats". So all the competitive candidates label themselves "Democrat", which has very low predictive power what their actual positions are.)

PaulHoule 4y ago

'Affordable housing' is a euphemism for "unaffordable housing that is subsidized". Democrats refuse to see the problem (if the residents can't afford it, can the rest of us?) and Republicans just hope that if they don't build "affordable housing" the residents will go to some other town. One angle is that adding more money makes things more expensive. If the money isn't there then people will do with less or do without. People have long been concerned that student loans contribute to increasing tuition and the evidence is accumulating for that https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...

specialist 4y ago
codegeek wrote: > No one is looking at this problem objectively... I know it appears that way. But there are 100s of orgs working every single issue from all sides. It's very, very challenging for these elites (experts) to get any attention. Death of journalism. Everyone's already overwhelmed. There's a zillion issues to care about. Consequently, most issue central orgs now focus on direct lobbying. FWIW, I was a serious activist (2004-2012). Media was a huge time sink. In retrospect, I wish we'd just focused on lobbying. Paul Houle wrote: > Democrats refuse to see the [housing] problem... I have friends working on housing issues. Policy people absolutely understand the shape and scope. And the developers I've spoken with (casually, not policy work) do too and have been clear eyed about the situation. My local party org does dozens of endorsement interviews every year. Housing has long been a hot issue. The sad truth is that NIMBY has been the norm. It's a mistake to think "Democrats" are left-wing, or are as "progressive" as we'd hope. Being "progressive" is usually on just 1 or 2 issues. Like a candidate who has been awesome on LBGTQ issues being utterly opposed to upzoning. (Further, my town now only elects "Democrats". So all the competitive candidates label themselves "Democrat", which has very low predictive power what their actual positions are.)