
How did this happen![]()
False abundance dems are pushing for less regulation to benefit the private sector not a more efficient government projects. While abundance Democrats talk about. building more housing, they rarely advocate for public housing—the kind that actually helps low-income communities ans starter homes which was a major factor pre reagan. . Instead, they lean heavily on deregulation and zoning tweaks, hoping the private market will magically solve the crisis. That’s wishful thinking at best which is why they're criticized for their neo liberal approach. It's a b*stardized half ass approach on expanding housing where public housing barely gets a mention, despite its proven track record in fighting homelessness and displacement. And while permitting reform sounds good on paper, it often ends up serving developers more than the people who need housing most. The real issue? They avoid policies that redistribute power or wealth—like federal investment in social housing—because that would mean confronting corporate interests and donors. As David Greenwald puts it, this version of “progress” risks handing the reins to the very forces that created the problem in the first place.People want a more efficient government. People hate seeing projects run long, never complete, or not deliver what was promised when they voted for it.
That’s the core argument pushed by abundance dems. Seeing defund people do the same thing they accused others is hilarious to me.
Which is worse? Pakman’s tweet or your Idol Hassan leading his sheep to a slaughter by feigning ignorance towards who would be worse for Palestine between Kamala and Trump?Lol that david pakman tweet on Gaza hospital , ah it makes sense why chorus onky reached out to certain types![]()
So instead of trying a new approach we should do nothing and whine, which is the twitter leftists specialty?False abundance dems are pushing for less regulation to benefit the private sector not a more efficient government projects. While abundance Democrats talk about. building more housing, they rarely advocate for public housing—the kind that actually helps low-income communities ans starter homes which was a major factor pre reagan. . Instead, they lean heavily on deregulation and zoning tweaks, hoping the private market will magically solve the crisis. That’s wishful thinking at best which is why they're criticized for their neo liberal approach. It's a b*stardized half ass approach on expanding housing where public housing barely gets a mention, despite its proven track record in fighting homelessness and displacement. And while permitting reform sounds good on paper, it often ends up serving developers more than the people who need housing most. The real issue? They avoid policies that redistribute power or wealth—like federal investment in social housing—because that would mean confronting corporate interests and donors. As David Greenwald puts it, this version of “progress” risks handing the reins to the very forces that created the problem in the first place.
You read what I wrote which discussed a different approach and this the stupid shyt you replied with? Just brain dead shytlib postingSo instead of trying a new approach we should do nothing and whine, which is the twitter leftists specialty?
This all it takes for you huh@Loose punching air right now
homelessness is not a priority. Housing affordability for the middle class is.False abundance dems are pushing for less regulation to benefit the private sector not a more efficient government projects. While abundance Democrats talk about. building more housing, they rarely advocate for public housing—the kind that actually helps low-income communities ans starter homes which was a major factor pre reagan. . Instead, they lean heavily on deregulation and zoning tweaks, hoping the private market will magically solve the crisis. That’s wishful thinking at best which is why they're criticized for their neo liberal approach. It's a b*stardized half ass approach on expanding housing where public housing barely gets a mention, despite its proven track record in fighting homelessness and displacement. And while permitting reform sounds good on paper, it often ends up serving developers more than the people who need housing most. The real issue? They avoid policies that redistribute power or wealth—like federal investment in social housing—because that would mean confronting corporate interests and donors. As David Greenwald puts it, this version of “progress” risks handing the reins to the very forces that created the problem in the first place.
