Housing is not a right

[rightwinger]

I think the most who complain about social programs are those who don't pay taxes.

Please name an American adult who doesn’t pay taxes.

Anyone at all.

Trump

 

[rightwinger]

Why wouldn’t it be a right?

If it’s a right, then it has to be written somewhere. If you could tell us where that is, then maybe you’d have a point.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

 

[SmokeALib]

I think the most who complain about social programs are those who don't pay taxes.

Please name an American adult who doesn’t pay taxes.

Anyone at all.

Trump

Trump has paid more in taxes that you'll make in a lifetime. Damn fool.

 

[Penelope]

I think the most who complain about social programs are those who don't pay taxes.

Please name an American adult who doesn’t pay taxes.

Anyone at all.

Trump

Trump has paid more in taxes that you'll make in a lifetime. Damn fool.

When, in 2005?

 

[SmokeALib]

Having a gun is not a right either.

It is at my house.

 

[Penelope]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I prefer to live in an advanced society where it is a right.

You and your ilk prefer to live in a society where anything you want is a right.

Unfortunately Real Dick thinks a “right” means government provides it. That is not the case. He and his fellow parasites absolutely have a right to housing. But it is their responsibility to arrange for that house themselves (legally). I have a right to keep and bear arms - but the government doesn’t issue me firearms. It is my responsibility to legally obtain them myself.

Unfortunately,you are too ******* stupid to know what I think or know.

First of all, most sane people don't NEED a ******* gun.

People do need shelter. In an advanced society, people are given access to housing. Just like for food & healtrhcarte.

So we provide them with houses, with food, with utilities, with medical care, with child care, with education. Is there anything left for them to provide themselves?????

Who do you provide this for and who are WE?

 

[rightwinger]

I think the most who complain about social programs are those who don't pay taxes.

Please name an American adult who doesn’t pay taxes.

Anyone at all.

Trump

Trump has paid more in taxes that you'll make in a lifetime. Damn fool.

Prove it

 

[SmokeALib]

I think the most who complain about social programs are those who don't pay taxes.

Please name an American adult who doesn’t pay taxes.

Anyone at all.

Trump

Trump has paid more in taxes that you'll make in a lifetime. Damn fool.

Prove it

No.
Kiss my ass.

 

[SmokeALib]

I prefer to live in an advanced society where it is a right.

You and your ilk prefer to live in a society where anything you want is a right.

Unfortunately Real Dick thinks a “right” means government provides it. That is not the case. He and his fellow parasites absolutely have a right to housing. But it is their responsibility to arrange for that house themselves (legally). I have a right to keep and bear arms - but the government doesn’t issue me firearms. It is my responsibility to legally obtain them myself.

Unfortunately,you are too ******* stupid to know what I think or know.

First of all, most sane people don't NEED a ******* gun.

People do need shelter. In an advanced society, people are given access to housing. Just like for food & healtrhcarte.

So we provide them with houses, with food, with utilities, with medical care, with child care, with education. Is there anything left for them to provide themselves?????

Who do you provide this for and who are WE?

Since leftist traitors as yourself rarely work, I'd go with Republican taxpayers providing for couch-dwelling democratic filth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So we provide them with houses, with food, with utilities, with medical care, with child care, with education. Is there anything left for them to provide themselves?????

A lot of people receiving help are working. Some can't work.

Housing help, heating help, food stamps, medicaid.

Single parents who work need child care.

If you assholes would increase the minium age then we would not have to subsidize thosr employers.

Oh, in other words government forcing industry to Democrat pay scales. No thank you.

Did you ever think the reason some people are working and receiving government help is because of their irresponsible decisions in life and not minimum wage? You know, like having kids you could never afford?

So let's see: why is it I can support myself on my job and others can't? For one, I never had any children. Two, minimum wage jobs just didn't work for me, so I learned a new career; one where I am highly in demand. Three, I don't spend money I don't have. Four, instead of spending the money I made partying, buying crap I didn't need, I invested it in real estate and created a second income along with a retirement supplement.

So lets bring back sweat shops & child labor? Look, if a company can't afford to pay their help more than minium wage, then it ain't worth shit & the owner/manager is too stupid to own or manage a company.

Gee, I wonder how dumbass like you can do shit. You must have a job that requires no thought.

Not everyone has the same opportunities..Those born to well off parents have many times better chances than those born into poverty. Some people are physically or mentally unable to work a good job. Single parents have kids to take care off. Some have an illness that prevents then from working full time.

Your item one makes me happy. You had opportunities & you did OK, congratulations.

When employers pay the minimum wagem, they are being subsidized by you as the government has to step in & help them with housing, food, healthcare. So why aren't you having a freak out about them?

So let's go through your laundry list here:

Why are people single-parent families if they could never afford those kids in the first place? Government.

People who cannot work more than part-time are eligible for partial disability. One of my tenants is on it.

Not everybody has equal opportunities; those born with well-off parents have better chances than those born into poverty. I agree. Then why are we subsidizing and incentivizing poor people to have children in the first place? Shouldn't we be doing the exact opposite? Maybe make a requirement that you have to be fixed first before getting one red cent from taxpayers? Then using that money to give tax breaks to affluent families if they have more children?

Your worth as an employee is calculated by how easy you are to replace. You are only worth as much as an employer can pay somebody else to do the same job (same quality) as you do. That's what we are all worth.

If you make 20 bucks an hour, go to your employer and ask for a raise, and he refuses, you can leave and let him find somebody else. Now if he can pay the new replacement 18 bucks an hour to do the exact same job that you did, you were being overpaid. If he can find somebody for the same wage as you, you were making exactly what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody 22 bucks an hour or more to take your job, you were correct in leaving because you were being underpaid.

My mother was a single parent. You are such a total asshole for assuming all single parents or even most are single & had a pile of kids they could not afford. People don't get sick, they don't get divorced, people don't lose jobs. Nope.

This is why you are such a ******* worthless piece of shit.

Lets put on a minimum income requirement to get a permit to have a kid. That's not government interference,nooooooooo.

Did I say every single parent? It’s one thing if a person with a family falls into an unplanned situation and quite another when a single woman has kid after kid from different baby daddies (as they call them) all the time.

Nobody on any form of government assistance should be having any more kids, but because Democrats thrive on government defendants, the more the better.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[RealDave]

A lot of people receiving help are working. Some can't work.

Housing help, heating help, food stamps, medicaid.

Single parents who work need child care.

If you assholes would increase the minium age then we would not have to subsidize thosr employers.

Oh, in other words government forcing industry to Democrat pay scales. No thank you.

Did you ever think the reason some people are working and receiving government help is because of their irresponsible decisions in life and not minimum wage? You know, like having kids you could never afford?

So let's see: why is it I can support myself on my job and others can't? For one, I never had any children. Two, minimum wage jobs just didn't work for me, so I learned a new career; one where I am highly in demand. Three, I don't spend money I don't have. Four, instead of spending the money I made partying, buying crap I didn't need, I invested it in real estate and created a second income along with a retirement supplement.

So lets bring back sweat shops & child labor? Look, if a company can't afford to pay their help more than minium wage, then it ain't worth shit & the owner/manager is too stupid to own or manage a company.

Gee, I wonder how dumbass like you can do shit. You must have a job that requires no thought.

Not everyone has the same opportunities..Those born to well off parents have many times better chances than those born into poverty. Some people are physically or mentally unable to work a good job. Single parents have kids to take care off. Some have an illness that prevents then from working full time.

Your item one makes me happy. You had opportunities & you did OK, congratulations.

When employers pay the minimum wagem, they are being subsidized by you as the government has to step in & help them with housing, food, healthcare. So why aren't you having a freak out about them?

So let's go through your laundry list here:

Why are people single-parent families if they could never afford those kids in the first place? Government.

People who cannot work more than part-time are eligible for partial disability. One of my tenants is on it.

Not everybody has equal opportunities; those born with well-off parents have better chances than those born into poverty. I agree. Then why are we subsidizing and incentivizing poor people to have children in the first place? Shouldn't we be doing the exact opposite? Maybe make a requirement that you have to be fixed first before getting one red cent from taxpayers? Then using that money to give tax breaks to affluent families if they have more children?

Your worth as an employee is calculated by how easy you are to replace. You are only worth as much as an employer can pay somebody else to do the same job (same quality) as you do. That's what we are all worth.

If you make 20 bucks an hour, go to your employer and ask for a raise, and he refuses, you can leave and let him find somebody else. Now if he can pay the new replacement 18 bucks an hour to do the exact same job that you did, you were being overpaid. If he can find somebody for the same wage as you, you were making exactly what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody 22 bucks an hour or more to take your job, you were correct in leaving because you were being underpaid.

My mother was a single parent. You are such a total asshole for assuming all single parents or even most are single & had a pile of kids they could not afford. People don't get sick, they don't get divorced, people don't lose jobs. Nope.

This is why you are such a ******* worthless piece of shit.

Lets put on a minimum income requirement to get a permit to have a kid. That's not government interference,nooooooooo.

Did I say every single parent? It’s one thing if a person with a family falls into an unplanned situation and quite another when a single woman has kid after kid from different baby daddies (as they call them) all the time.

Nobody on any form of government assistance should be having any more kids, but because Democrats thrive on government defendants, the more the better.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Funny chit but you basically said all single mothers were scamming the system. The actual percent of families receiving welfare have 1 kid or less. Another 25% had two kods.

Hardly pumping out babies to get welfare,.

You are a ignorant fool like your orange buddy spouting shit that is a lie.

 

[dblack]

I prefer to live in an advanced society where it is a right.

You and your ilk prefer to live in a society where anything you want is a right.

Unfortunately Real Dick thinks a “right” means government provides it. That is not the case. He and his fellow parasites absolutely have a right to housing. But it is their responsibility to arrange for that house themselves (legally). I have a right to keep and bear arms - but the government doesn’t issue me firearms. It is my responsibility to legally obtain them myself.

Unfortunately,you are too ******* stupid to know what I think or know.

First of all, most sane people don't NEED a ******* gun.

People do need shelter. In an advanced society, people are given access to housing. Just like for food & healtrhcarte.

So we provide them with houses, with food, with utilities, with medical care, with child care, with education. Is there anything left for them to provide themselves?????

Who do you provide this for and who are WE?

Good question. Democrats are eager to identify government as "us". But, even if we imagine a perfectly functioning democracy, it only represents the majority. And of course the reality is that it's not ideal, and government is filled with people who want to use government to control society for their own purposes. Usually these are the people who have the most to lose or gain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So we provide them with houses, with food, with utilities, with medical care, with child care, with education. Is there anything left for them to provide themselves?????

A lot of people receiving help are working. Some can't work.

Housing help, heating help, food stamps, medicaid.

Single parents who work need child care.

If you assholes would increase the minium age then we would not have to subsidize thosr employers.

Oh, in other words government forcing industry to Democrat pay scales. No thank you.

Did you ever think the reason some people are working and receiving government help is because of their irresponsible decisions in life and not minimum wage? You know, like having kids you could never afford?

So let's see: why is it I can support myself on my job and others can't? For one, I never had any children. Two, minimum wage jobs just didn't work for me, so I learned a new career; one where I am highly in demand. Three, I don't spend money I don't have. Four, instead of spending the money I made partying, buying crap I didn't need, I invested it in real estate and created a second income along with a retirement supplement.

So lets bring back sweat shops & child labor? Look, if a company can't afford to pay their help more than minium wage, then it ain't worth shit & the owner/manager is too stupid to own or manage a company.

Gee, I wonder how dumbass like you can do shit. You must have a job that requires no thought.

Not everyone has the same opportunities..Those born to well off parents have many times better chances than those born into poverty. Some people are physically or mentally unable to work a good job. Single parents have kids to take care off. Some have an illness that prevents then from working full time.

Your item one makes me happy. You had opportunities & you did OK, congratulations.

When employers pay the minimum wagem, they are being subsidized by you as the government has to step in & help them with housing, food, healthcare. So why aren't you having a freak out about them?

So let's go through your laundry list here:

Why are people single-parent families if they could never afford those kids in the first place? Government.

People who cannot work more than part-time are eligible for partial disability. One of my tenants is on it.

Not everybody has equal opportunities; those born with well-off parents have better chances than those born into poverty. I agree. Then why are we subsidizing and incentivizing poor people to have children in the first place? Shouldn't we be doing the exact opposite? Maybe make a requirement that you have to be fixed first before getting one red cent from taxpayers? Then using that money to give tax breaks to affluent families if they have more children?

Your worth as an employee is calculated by how easy you are to replace. You are only worth as much as an employer can pay somebody else to do the same job (same quality) as you do. That's what we are all worth.

If you make 20 bucks an hour, go to your employer and ask for a raise, and he refuses, you can leave and let him find somebody else. Now if he can pay the new replacement 18 bucks an hour to do the exact same job that you did, you were being overpaid. If he can find somebody for the same wage as you, you were making exactly what you were worth. If he has to pay somebody 22 bucks an hour or more to take your job, you were correct in leaving because you were being underpaid.

My mother was a single parent. You are such a total asshole for assuming all single parents or even most are single & had a pile of kids they could not afford. People don't get sick, they don't get divorced, people don't lose jobs. Nope.

This is why you are such a ******* worthless piece of shit.

Lets put on a minimum income requirement to get a permit to have a kid. That's not government interference,nooooooooo.

You are a total asshole for thinking "anecdotal evidence" is actual evidence. "My mom was a single mother, so that invalidates any statistics about single mothers in general, because MY MOMMY!!!"

Whatever, dimwit.

Are most families in America who are below the poverty line there because someone got sick? Or because of a divorce? Or because of a job loss? Nope.

This is why you are such a ******* worthless piece of shit.

Let's assume that the only way to get something done is to have the government be in charge of it. That's not asinine, noooooooo.

 

[P@triot]

First of all, most sane people don't NEED a ******* gun.

If you were sane, you would know that you absolutely need a decent arsenal of firearms. But you’re a typical ignorant progressive. Ignoring history (government execution of citizens by the U.S.S.R., China, Iraq, etc. and civil wars like Korea, Somalia, and the U.S.). Why accept reality when progressives fantasy land is so much more fun for your fragile liberal psyche, right?

People do need shelter.

And thus it is their responsibility to arrange for said shelter. Why is this such a difficult concept for you? People needed housing in the 1700’s as well junior, and government never provided it.

In an advanced society, people are given access to housing.

Nobody is denied access to housing, junior. Nobody. You’re inability to arrange for your own shelter doesn’t mean you were denied access. It means you were incapable of being an adult and taking care of your business.

Just like for food & healtrhcarte.

And here is a perfect example of why people do “NEED” a firearm. If they had one, they could hunt and feed themselves. Thank you for illustrating to the world that you literally cannot figure out which way is up. You keep contradicting yourself.