Housing is not a right

[SmokeALib]

At one point during the OBlamer years, this country seemingly turned so far left, I thought about quitting my job for free housing, food, phone, health care, spending cash, etc. I mean - why work?
I'm happy to say that US citizenry decided that communism/socialism is not what this country is about.
Freedom wins!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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!

"People have told me that the problem with getting ahead is you leave others behind. But that's the idea of getting ahead. If we all moved up the same distance at the same time, then nobody gets ahead."
Brian Kilmeade

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

At one point during the OBlamer years, this country seemingly turned so far left, I thought about quitting my job for free housing, food, phone, health care, spending cash, etc. I mean - why work?
I'm happy to say that US citizenry decided that communism/socialism is not what this country is about.
Freedom wins!

Exactly the same here. After I lost my employer healthcare because of Commie Care, I thought about doing the same thing. I can easily get on disability, but thank goodness I found my pride and opted to struggle keeping a job.

 

[beagle9]

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.

These days it's more true than ever, and they don't even try to be clever about it anymore like they used to be.

 

[SmokeALib]

At one point during the OBlamer years, this country seemingly turned so far left, I thought about quitting my job for free housing, food, phone, health care, spending cash, etc. I mean - why work?
I'm happy to say that US citizenry decided that communism/socialism is not what this country is about.
Freedom wins!

Exactly the same here. After I lost my employer healthcare because of Commie Care, I thought about doing the same thing. I can easily get on disability, but thank goodness I found my pride and opted to struggle keeping a job.

Thank you. We do need some taxpayers for national defense.

 

[beagle9]

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!

"People have told me that the problem with getting ahead is you leave others behind. But that's the idea of getting ahead. If we all moved up the same distance at the same time, then nobody gets ahead."
Brian Kilmeade

Nothing wrong with moving ahead without leaving friends or family behind, but we all know what happens in these situations don't we ???

A weird jealousy begins to developed or a person begins to become ashamed for all sorts of reasons that they are failing when you might be succeeding in life. You try to hold on, stay friends, be helpful, but they push you away as if your presence is a threat to their mental being. So you move on like they want you to in hopes that soon they will come around, and if they don't there is nothing you can do about it.

Some try to undermine you in your success or worse they begin to look at you as a bank to take care of them, otherwise the situation quickly turns from friendship to usery.

So many variables, but of course our government knows best for us right ??? Bawahawahawahahawahawa...

 

[beagle9]

At one point during the OBlamer years, this country seemingly turned so far left, I thought about quitting my job for free housing, food, phone, health care, spending cash, etc. I mean - why work?
I'm happy to say that US citizenry decided that communism/socialism is not what this country is about.
Freedom wins!

Now just keeping companies from seeing us as weaklings instead of Americans who are in this to make them wealthy while making our ownselves stable and good in life as well, then everything will run like a greased wheel instead of a severe squeaky wheel needing greased badly.

If want government out of it, then a return to Unions must be supported again, but the right Unions and not bad ones.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

But most never got their land. The government suddenly realized the land they were giving them along the coastline that they didn't think would be all that great for farming, was actually prime real estate for other things like sea ports and fishing. Plus well, Andrew Johnson wasn't exactly on the side of the Blacks. He's one of the two Presidents that have been impeached.

 

[dblack]

why do so many libs keep saying that it is?

They want everyone dependent on government for life's necessities. How else will we get people to fight out wars for us?

 

[dblack]

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

Which really just illustrates that they don't know (or just don't care) what rights are in the first place. They simply think of them as perks supplied by government. To them there's no difference between freedom of speech and the "right" to force someone else to pay for your shit.

 

[dblack]

If want government out of it, then a return to Unions must be supported again, but the right Unions and not bad ones.

We also need a strict separation between labor and government. The union movement went off the rails when it gave up on legitimate organizing and began lobbying government for legal perks instead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a right wing cry fest. The fact is that when all the population is warm, dry, sheltered, fed, and protected, the nation is much better off and firmer as a people.

 

[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.

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!

If you are living in a government shelter, depending on your food and basic healthcare on the government....you will be feeling PLENTY of pain. No one who is on welfare and is mentally stable enjoys being on welfare. NO ONE.

But - and I don't care what anyone says on this, it will not change my mind - the government owes it's citizens basic shelter/food/medical care.

I am not saying they owe the population an apartment with lavish food and Cadillac healthcare...but they DO owe them the means to basic survival.

I should add though..that I think the government should provide children and the disabled (who cannot find work) FULL healthcare as these people are powerless and they should not suffer. ESPECIALLY children. Why should a child not get full healthcare just because they have crappy parents?

I say all children under 18 should be eligible for FULL government healthcare...if they need it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You don't want to pay any taxes is it.

 

[OldLady]

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.

It sounds like a reasonable plan, for those who would go. I can imagine that some stay away from "government run" shelters and projects for the homeless because they don't want to get entangled in all that red tape. Or they're alcoholics/drug addicts. That would require an extra level of care. But our shelters are always over capacity and a lot of our homeless are living in their vehicles or "couch surfing" so they aren't visible, and I'm sure many of them would welcome your idea. It's a good start in the right direction, anyway.

 

[dblack]

What a right wing cry fest. The fact is that when all the population is warm, dry, sheltered, fed, and protected, the nation is much better off and firmer as a people.

If we mistreat the serfs, they wan't fight wars for us. We can't have that!

 

[OldLady]

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.

They BBQ?
OMG! Where does the depravity end?

 

[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.

You don't want to pay any taxes is it.

No one does.

They only want others to do so.

If we have to be taxed ( and the necessity of taxes is very debatable ) they should be strictly for necessary functions of government. Maintenance of a persons life is not a function of government. It is up to the individual to provide their own food and shelter and anything else necessary to the maintenance of one's life. Government is strictly an insititution of force and violence and if they are using their revenue to that end ( courts military police prison ) then it is acceptable.

 

[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!

If you are living in a government shelter, depending on your food and basic healthcare on the government....you will be feeling PLENTY of pain. No one who is on welfare and is mentally stable enjoys being on welfare. NO ONE.

But - and I don't care what anyone says on this, it will not change my mind - the government owes it's citizens basic shelter/food/medical care.

I am not saying they owe the population an apartment with lavish food and Cadillac healthcare...but they DO owe them the means to basic survival.

I should add though..that I think the government should provide children and the disabled (who cannot find work) FULL healthcare as these people are powerless and they should not suffer. ESPECIALLY children. Why should a child not get full healthcare just because they have crappy parents?

I say all children under 18 should be eligible for FULL government healthcare...if they need it.

OK, so tell us, what does a mother of 2 without a job in New York City get per year on average-) You know, all the goodies-)

Now then, you tell all of US, how she can come off assistance and make a profit to make it worth her while.

And you know what, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, correct! That means YOU are also the government. Now take in a few homeless, feed them, show us YOUR compassion.

 

[dblack]

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.

They BBQ?
OMG! Where does the depravity end?

Most people look at these kinds of issues very "locally" - they think in terms of someone else getting something for nothing and it pisses them off. But that is the least of the problems with the welfare state. The real issue is the power that it gives to authoritarian government.

When government controls your health care, your housing, your food supply, your job -- what are you going to say when they tell you get to work building "the wall"?

 

[beagle9]

I know someone who has been on and off government assistance since she was 18 years old, and she says that the system of assistance sets the person up to fail, and causes the person to remain dependent.

I said to her that I think that there should be case workers assigned to 20 cases each or more if the work load is organized properly.. Reports are to be made, records kept, and help given in financial and schooling with results obtained. Drug testing should also be a big part of it. Living inspections made on properties being rented by the assistance programs etc.

And most of all we need government workers hired that don't have a biased or conflict of interest involved in doing their jobs. Otherwise drain the dam swamp already.

Everyone knows what has gone on to create these things, but people feel helpless to straighten the bullcrap out. Time to vote in the answers to these issues, and quit being fooled to place people in jobs that never intend to do the right thing, but instead see's their position as a given once obtained.

Trump is setting the tone on work ethic, and if others aren't willing to work hard, then get the hell out.