Housing is not a right

[Ray From Cleveland]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

You prefer them shitting on the sidewalk in L.A. because they're living on the street with no options. I'm pretty sure you were strongly in favor of that, weren't you?

Decent people don't shit on the sidewalk, whether they have a place to live or not. People who shit on the street aren't going to behave decently, whether you give them a house or not.

Do NOT try to BS us that people are shitting on the sidewalk only because the government hasn't shelled out for an apartment, and if it did, they'll straighten right up and be indistinguishable from your average bank manager.

And if that is a problem, then why doesn't the city provide a port-a-potty so they don't shit on the sidewalks?

 

[ColonelAngus]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

It generally believed that people need food, water and shelter to survive. Since the Right to Life is listed in the declaration of independence as an inalienable right, anyone who believes in inalienable rights would agree that housing is inherently a right.

No, you have a right to access those things, but not a right to be provided those things. Big difference.

Your rights end where mine begin.

These people want me to provide them with housing?

Why don’t liberals just sponsor homeless people to live in their spare bedrooms? Problem solved,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

You prefer them shitting on the sidewalk in L.A. because they're living on the street with no options. I'm pretty sure you were strongly in favor of that, weren't you?

Obviously LA seemed to be.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

The elites come to mind, hiding their money in offshore accounts, having a lot of shell companies to hide money like Trump. Having self serving foundations like Trump.

Self serving foundations...like the Clinton's for instance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

It generally believed that people need food, water and shelter to survive. Since the Right to Life is listed in the declaration of independence as an inalienable right, anyone who believes in inalienable rights would agree that housing is inherently a right.

No, you have a right to access those things, but not a right to be provided those things. Big difference.

Your rights end where mine begin.

These people want me to provide them with housing?

Why don’t liberals just sponsor homeless people to live in their spare bedrooms? Problem solved,

I unfortunately live next door to HUD people. Nice and quiet here until they moved in. Now they wake me at night because these lowlifes don't work or only work a few hours. They have BBQ parties for their friends; likely food bought with food stamps, and they are in the suburbs.

So where does this right exist that I work at least 40 a week to live here, and they get to move in virtually free and not work? As for the adults, all they'd have to do is lose about 200 lbs each and they could easily work. They have the energy to setup these parties of theirs all the time, I'm sure they have enough energy to support themselves.

 

[McRocket]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I do not know what 'libs' say about housing (as I am neither lib nor con).

And what do you mean by 'housing'?

If you mean owning a house...I agree with you.

If you mean having shelter...I do not.

I believe it is the government's responsibility to offer shelter to every one of it's citizen's. Not a house or an apartment...but clean, safe shelter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I do not know what 'libs' say about housing (as I am neither lib nor con).

And what do you mean by 'housing'?

If you mean owning a house...I agree with you.

If you mean having shelter...I do not.

I believe it is the government's responsibility to offer shelter to every one of it's citizen's. Not a house or an apartment...but clean, safe shelter.

And this government responsibility is written where?????

I don't know if you know this or not, but the responsibilities of our federal government are listed in the US Constitution. Housing or shelter is not one of them.

 

[imawhosure]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

It generally believed that people need food, water and shelter to survive. Since the Right to Life is listed in the declaration of independence as an inalienable right, anyone who believes in inalienable rights would agree that housing is inherently a right.

No, you have a right to access those things, but not a right to be provided those things. Big difference.

Your rights end where mine begin.

These people want me to provide them with housing?

Why don’t liberals just sponsor homeless people to live in their spare bedrooms? Problem solved,

I unfortunately live next door to HUD people. Nice and quiet here until they moved in. Now they wake me at night because these lowlifes don't work or only work a few hours. They have BBQ parties for their friends; likely food bought with food stamps, and they are in the suburbs.

So where does this right exist that I work at least 40 a week to live here, and they get to move in virtually free and not work? As for the adults, all they'd have to do is lose about 200 lbs each and they could easily work. They have the energy to setup these parties of theirs all the time, I'm sure they have enough energy to support themselves.

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I do not know what 'libs' say about housing (as I am neither lib nor con).

And what do you mean by 'housing'?

If you mean owning a house...I agree with you.

If you mean having shelter...I do not.

I believe it is the government's responsibility to offer shelter to every one of it's citizen's. Not a house or an apartment...but clean, safe shelter.

Guess Mr Rocket is a rocket scientist. Wonder if Mr Rocket has ever seen the clean, safe, shelters of the housing projects! We tried it his way before, and it FAILED!

Besides, anyone who sees it the way he/she does, should just let people come live with them. I am told statistically that there are LESS THAN 10 million homeless in America.

Now I KNOW there are more than 10 million liberal leftists in America, so they should be able to handle their do-gooding for this one, easily by themselves, instead of bothering us.

So tell us Leftists, how many homeless you got living with you-) And oh, if you are a phony independent, you can chime in also with YOUR current homeless occupants-)

 

[Mac1958]

We've chosen to conflate "rights" with "wants", just as we've chosen to conflate fact with opinion.

I hope there is a way to back to critical thinking from here, but I just don't see it.

Not "we" have chosen, the left has chosen.

By Clintonizing words like rights, they are able to draw a little more attention and sympathy to their cause. They often use the term Human Rights because they know their so-called made-up rights are not constitutional ones.

Both ends of the spectrum toss important words around like they're nothing.

The Left tosses out "rights", "racism", "homophobia" and "Nazi".

The Right tosses out "socialist", "communism" and (of course) "Nazi".

WE are to blame for that behavior.
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We've chosen to conflate "rights" with "wants", just as we've chosen to conflate fact with opinion.

I hope there is a way to back to critical thinking from here, but I just don't see it.

Not "we" have chosen, the left has chosen.

By Clintonizing words like rights, they are able to draw a little more attention and sympathy to their cause. They often use the term Human Rights because they know their so-called made-up rights are not constitutional ones.

Both ends of the spectrum toss important words around like they're nothing.

The Left tosses out "rights", "racism", "homophobia" and "Nazi".

The Right tosses out "socialist", "communism" and (of course) "Nazi".

WE are to blame for that behavior.
.

Right, we just toss them out. Forget the new movement is the so-called Democrat Socialism. Forget the US Communist Party endorsed the last three Democrat candidates for President.

But we just toss those words out with no evidence, don't we?

 

[Mac1958]

We've chosen to conflate "rights" with "wants", just as we've chosen to conflate fact with opinion.

I hope there is a way to back to critical thinking from here, but I just don't see it.

Not "we" have chosen, the left has chosen.

By Clintonizing words like rights, they are able to draw a little more attention and sympathy to their cause. They often use the term Human Rights because they know their so-called made-up rights are not constitutional ones.

Both ends of the spectrum toss important words around like they're nothing.

The Left tosses out "rights", "racism", "homophobia" and "Nazi".

The Right tosses out "socialist", "communism" and (of course) "Nazi".

WE are to blame for that behavior.
.

Right, we just toss them out. Forget the new movement is the so-called Democrat Socialism. Forget the US Communist Party endorsed the last three Democrat candidates for President.

But we just toss those words out with no evidence, don't we?

Yes.
.

 

[BlueGin]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

B/c leftism has the mentality of a spoiled child.

they literally want the government to give them everything, literally everything.

And when interviewed on college campuses and off the street that is exactly what they say when asked who should pay for all the freebies like tuition,healthcare,abortions etc. The Government. Like the Government is just a huge bank for liberals to withdrawal money from on a whim.

 

[Thinker101]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I do not know what 'libs' say about housing (as I am neither lib nor con).

And what do you mean by 'housing'?

If you mean owning a house...I agree with you.

If you mean having shelter...I do not.

I believe it is the government's responsibility to offer shelter to every one of it's citizen's. Not a house or an apartment...but clean, safe shelter.

Dood, I'm with you, while I don't feel it's government's responsibility to offer clean/safe shelter. I feel it's government's responsibility to provide clean/safe environments. As far as the shelter, that too is available, only catch is that you have to pay for it.

 

[imawhosure]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I do not know what 'libs' say about housing (as I am neither lib nor con).

And what do you mean by 'housing'?

If you mean owning a house...I agree with you.

If you mean having shelter...I do not.

I believe it is the government's responsibility to offer shelter to every one of it's citizen's. Not a house or an apartment...but clean, safe shelter.

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I do not know what 'libs' say about housing (as I am neither lib nor con).

And what do you mean by 'housing'?

If you mean owning a house...I agree with you.

If you mean having shelter...I do not.

I believe it is the government's responsibility to offer shelter to every one of it's citizen's. Not a house or an apartment...but clean, safe shelter.

And this government responsibility is written where?????

I don't know if you know this or not, but the responsibilities of our federal government are listed in the US Constitution. Housing or shelter is not one of them.

We've chosen to conflate "rights" with "wants", just as we've chosen to conflate fact with opinion.

I hope there is a way to back to critical thinking from here, but I just don't see it.

Not "we" have chosen, the left has chosen.

By Clintonizing words like rights, they are able to draw a little more attention and sympathy to their cause. They often use the term Human Rights because they know their so-called made-up rights are not constitutional ones.

Both ends of the spectrum toss important words around like they're nothing.

The Left tosses out "rights", "racism", "homophobia" and "Nazi".

The Right tosses out "socialist", "communism" and (of course) "Nazi".

WE are to blame for that behavior.
.

I have a question--------> While trying to not be partisan...……….have we NOT tried GIVING away stuff that we thought people needed to survive before?

1. Projects.

2. foodstamps

3. healthcare

4. energy subsidies

5. Obama/Bush phones

What has this plan of attack gotten society? We can NOT incentivize everyone to attempt to move up the ladder, without making the bottom rung uncomfortable!

And as a side note and a little off topic----------> those that illegally cross the border who get help, live as good as the upper middle class in the country they came from in most instances.

CONCLUSION-----------> unless you allow pain in poor peoples lives, you have NOT helped them move forward at all. That does NOT mean they won't by themselves, but it does mean, there is far less incentive to do so!

EXAMPLE---------> Kalifornia wants fine and jail time for use of plastic straws...……….and yet, they do NOT fine people who drop plastic syringes on the ground, with needles attached to them. Now, some Leftist explain to everyone on here how that is...…...EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW!

 

[beagle9]

Who says that Housing is not a right? That is merely an unfortunate opinion.

Then point out where Americans are guaranteed a right to housing.

This oughtta be good.

To be fair, I don't think leftists believe Americans ARE guaranteed a right to housing.

I think they believe Americans SHOULD be guaranteed a right to housing.

Worse, they think actually that Americans are garanteed your house if they need it (i.e...... a house that you own, but you don't want to rent to them because they will destroy it inside of 6 months)

 

[beagle9]

America has provided opportunities for free housing since America's very inception. Funny how folks who rant on about the founders and the original meanings of the Amendments yet ignore America's history when it is convenient for making partisan talking points or offering partisan opinions. Poor people and especially immigrants were given free land in the form of 40 or even 160-acre lots, usually covered with timber and stones suitable for building a house or cabin. America was settled from the original 13 colonies to the west for over a hundred years with free land giveaways.

When the slaves were freed they were even promised 40 acres and a mule. Most never got it though. Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson overturned General Sherman's order.

Hmm, growing up through the 60's and 70's there were a good many black family farmers, but as times changed they were hurt by corporate farming eventually gobbling everything up, ressesions, gas shortages, cultural changes as the single white family farmers were as well.

We aren't dealing with the same political landscapes, farming families, cultures, mindsets, banks, governments or anything we had back in the day, and in alot of cases that is a shame. We were on the right track many times, but so many changes came quickly that it was impossible for many to adapt quick enough or efficient enough in those times. This included people of all backgrounds and races.

 

[Thinker101]

America has provided opportunities for free housing since America's very inception. Funny how folks who rant on about the founders and the original meanings of the Amendments yet ignore America's history when it is convenient for making partisan talking points or offering partisan opinions. Poor people and especially immigrants were given free land in the form of 40 or even 160-acre lots, usually covered with timber and stones suitable for building a house or cabin. America was settled from the original 13 colonies to the west for over a hundred years with free land giveaways.

When the slaves were freed they were even promised 40 acres and a mule. Most never got it though. Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson overturned General Sherman's order.

Come on down, your mule is waiting.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not my assertion, Soggy. The OP has to evidence that it is not a right first.

We do not allow slavery and claiming that housing is a right is to advocate slavery.

Housing is the product of people's labor and you have no right to people's labor or it;s production.

 

[OldLady]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I do not know what 'libs' say about housing (as I am neither lib nor con).

And what do you mean by 'housing'?

If you mean owning a house...I agree with you.

If you mean having shelter...I do not.

I believe it is the government's responsibility to offer shelter to every one of it's citizen's. Not a house or an apartment...but clean, safe shelter.

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

I do not know what 'libs' say about housing (as I am neither lib nor con).

And what do you mean by 'housing'?

If you mean owning a house...I agree with you.

If you mean having shelter...I do not.

I believe it is the government's responsibility to offer shelter to every one of it's citizen's. Not a house or an apartment...but clean, safe shelter.

And this government responsibility is written where?????

I don't know if you know this or not, but the responsibilities of our federal government are listed in the US Constitution. Housing or shelter is not one of them.

We've chosen to conflate "rights" with "wants", just as we've chosen to conflate fact with opinion.

I hope there is a way to back to critical thinking from here, but I just don't see it.

Not "we" have chosen, the left has chosen.

By Clintonizing words like rights, they are able to draw a little more attention and sympathy to their cause. They often use the term Human Rights because they know their so-called made-up rights are not constitutional ones.

Both ends of the spectrum toss important words around like they're nothing.

The Left tosses out "rights", "racism", "homophobia" and "Nazi".

The Right tosses out "socialist", "communism" and (of course) "Nazi".

WE are to blame for that behavior.
.

I have a question--------> While trying to not be partisan...……….have we NOT tried GIVING away stuff that we thought people needed to survive before?

1. Projects.

2. foodstamps

3. healthcare

4. energy subsidies

5. Obama/Bush phones

What has this plan of attack gotten society? We can NOT incentivize everyone to attempt to move up the ladder, without making the bottom rung uncomfortable!

And as a side note and a little off topic----------> those that illegally cross the border who get help, live as good as the upper middle class in the country they came from in most instances.

CONCLUSION-----------> unless you allow pain in poor peoples lives, you have NOT helped them move forward at all. That does NOT mean they won't by themselves, but it does mean, there is far less incentive to do so!

EXAMPLE---------> Kalifornia wants fine and jail time for use of plastic straws...……….and yet, they do NOT fine people who drop plastic syringes on the ground, with needles attached to them. Now, some Leftist explain to everyone on here how that is...…...EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW!

CONCLUSION-----------> unless you allow pain in poor peoples lives, you have NOT helped them move forward at all. That does NOT mean they won't by themselves, but it does mean, there is far less incentive to do so!
You sound like something straight out of Charles Dickens. Geesus.

 

[beagle9]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

You prefer them shitting on the sidewalk in L.A. because they're living on the street with no options. I'm pretty sure you were strongly in favor of that, weren't you?

Decent people don't shit on the sidewalk, whether they have a place to live or not. People who shit on the street aren't going to behave decently, whether you give them a house or not.

Do NOT try to BS us that people are shitting on the sidewalk only because the government hasn't shelled out for an apartment, and if it did, they'll straighten right up and be indistinguishable from your average bank manager.

So you're living in a tent on the sidewalk in L.A.; the local businesses have long since forbidden you homeless folks to walk in and use their bathrooms without making a purchase, but you don't have any money. Where you gonna go, Cecilie?

I really don't want to talk about this anymore; it's gross. But it's also true. Every single day that you have a flushing toilet and mattress to sleep on with a roof over your head, you should feel fortunate. Because everyone of those people living on the street? There but for the Grace of God goes I. Or you. And a LOT of them do indeed clean up just fine once they have a place to live and a hand up getting back to work.
Imagine doing a serious job search after living in a tent for a month.
Give it a little real thought.

This is where the government should provide tent cities in rural areas of the counties, and it could provide those things needed to live a clean healthy existance until the person is treated, and then moved to the more appropriate settings in life.

I say a tent City because poverty should be a temporary situation, and not a permanent one. This can be done, and the streets of California or any other major city could be homeless free inside of two years.

The tent City would be run by government officials and volunteers handpicked to be helpful and not harmful to the homeless in their care. Weekly inspections would be initiated after the cities open.

If our military can open or build state of the art temporary tent cities in war zones to house the troops complete with all the needed amenities to run such a thing, then our nation can do the same for the homeless.