Do you believe that everyone deserves housing?

[jlhog]

I will probably take a hit or two for this. I firmly do not believe anyone deserves anything. If you want something work until you can get it. I have had nothing given to me, not even from my parents. If everyone simply deserves everything, who will pay for it all? I do feel some people need assistance for short term only. Social Services is not a way of life.

 

[papa tiger]

Or just get your lazy ass out of town. ... TWMPS ... (thas what my parents said)
This isn't no Police man for the world place. We may need to go backwards some Century soon.

 

[Brookswood]

Your county may spend $40,000 per year on each homeless person and you COULD rent them a $2,000 a month apt. but you don't do you. The homeless never see any of that money I'll wager which is why homelessness remains such a problem in America.

Agreed. The homeless see very little of that money. That is a huge part of the problem. There is a huge homeless industrial complex that has a vested interest in not solving the problem. IE they make more money. It’s the homeless equivalent of the military’s $400 hammer. They steal from the taxpayers and the needy. Shameful. There should be a special place in Heck for these people.

 

[oldaunt]

Fact is, if there were no handouts, everyone would have to work at something.

 

[Naturally]

I think people deserve what they earn.
There is a difference between earning and outright entitlement.

 

[Aunt Mavis]

Some bums don’t want a home nor help.

 

[Naturally]

... and a few folks spend most of their life on boats at sea from one port to the next, seldom spending much time ashore off their sailboats.
I deserve a boat. Everybody deserves a boat, fair winds and following seas.

 

[gruntlabor]

... introduce capitalism, and you have a system that is largely predicated on haves, and have-nots.

No-one ever said the Great Experiment was perfect. Jefferson said, 'A republic --if you can keep it.'

 

[ElCastor]

All of our rights under the constitution come with responsibilities. So it makes sense that, if housing becomes a constitutional right, each person will have certain responsibilities in order to benefit from that right.

Is housing a constitutional right? if not, it would take an amendment to make it one. Good luck with that.

 

[gruntlabor]

Is housing a constitutional right? if not, it would take an amendment to make it one. Good luck with that.

I've never in my life quoted the law or the constitution to a lawyer without being laughed at, but
=======================
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says of the Powers of Congress that:
"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the general Welfare of the United States ... "
========================
I take it that means that they can do whatever they want except for the powers denied them.

 

[seadoug]

I'd like to add a little bit to this thought... you're absolutely right. I did a short stint with crisis counseling and while everyone *should* have that place to stay, shower, etc. it's incorrect to assume they all WANT it... so when you say "you can't force participation," that's exactly the problem.

I was always shocked at the number of homeless people who did not want to stay at a shelter. Did not want help. I've seen police officers offer to take people to a place to stay whether it was a shelter or other places offering a roof, food, and shower. More often than you'd believe, they simply wouldn't go. Human right or not, it's not so cut and dried as to think it's what they all want.

Very true. As I understand it, there are various reasons. Some of the homeless have pets, which the shelters don't accept. Some are on drugs that wouldn't pass muster at a shelter or they don't care to abide by the shelter curfews.

There was a homeless woman sitting in her own urine outside my dry cleaners. I gave her a $20 because I felt so sorry for her. I was then told by the manager of the dry cleaners that the police had offered to take her to a shelter but she refused. She didn't have a pet with her, so...

 

[Knight]

High cost of housing listed as the major reason for homeless

ttps://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/slideshows/best-affordable-places-to-live-in-the-us?slide=2

#25 on the list of best affordable places to live

Jan 24, 2024
One year ago, the annual “point-in-time count” determined that there were 771 people experiencing homelessness in Montgomery County, including 107 individuals who were living on the streets and unsheltered.

Those were the highest numbers recorded since a local homeless solutions plan was adopted in 2006.

Homeless count in 2023 was Montgomery County’s highest; new count ongoing today.

#1 on the list

For the first time, homelessness has become a daunting problem in the small, North Carolina city of Hickory. The Salvation Army Shelter of Hope is pressed well beyond its capacity. As a result, some 150 or so wounded souls live in the woods surrounding town. They patch together makeshift, cardboard lean-tos and dilapidated tents –

Homeless in Hickory

If the most affordable have homeless is there really any way the problem is going to be done away with? I don't think the problem will ever go away.

 

[oldaunt]

Very true. As I understand it, there are various reasons. Some of the homeless have pets, which the shelters don't accept. Some are on drugs that wouldn't pass muster at a shelter or they don't care to abide by the shelter curfews.

There was a homeless woman sitting in her own urine outside my dry cleaners. I gave her a $20 because I felt so sorry for her. I was then told by the manager of the dry cleaners that the police had offered to take her to a shelter but she refused. She didn't have a pet with her, so...

A good bit of the homeless are people who, in times not so far past, would have been put in mental hospitals for treatment. Then all those hospitals were closed down.

 

[ElCastor]

I've never in my life quoted the law or the constitution to a lawyer without being laughed at, but
=======================
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says of the Powers of Congress that:
"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the general Welfare of the United States ... "
========================
I take it that means that they can do whatever they want except for the powers denied them.

Oh, whatever they want? Free housing for everyone? Do what you like, but I‘m not holding my breath on that one. Hey why stop with housing? How about free everything for everyone?

 

[Murrmurr]

Is housing a constitutional right? if not, it would take an amendment to make it one. Good luck with that.

It isn't. Some people wish it was, and some think it should be. I'm not one of them, but since rights come with responsibilities, maybe....mmmaybe it would be a good thing.

I doubt it, though.

 

[Murrmurr]

Hey why stop with housing? How about free everything for everyone?

That's actually do-able, El C ....for the underemployed/unemployed... which is the cause of many of America's domestic problems (imo).

 

[VaughanJB]

No-one ever said the Great Experiment was perfect. Jefferson said, 'A republic --if you can keep it.'

But it IS just about perfect. Once you accept that rules of the game is predicated on haves, and have-nots, then you can't complain about their existence. Why are there homeless on the streets, why are there people working minimum wage, why are many of our goods manufactured abroad? Because the system dictates it should be this way.

To prevent it, you have to look beyond the system, such as socialized medicine (which isn't "free" in actuality, but we won't go there). With socialized medicine delivery of healthcare is free, though the mechanisms of capitalism operate in terms of supply of materials (drugs etc.)

Still, telling a homeless family that it's a shame they're homeless, but the system requires both winners and losers, isn't likely to bring anyone comfort.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Maybe if we voted for people who would fight for jobs being created and brought back to the US so we could have a functioning middle class, then the homeless would have some work to do. As it is, the job market seems awful uninviting, with narrow possibilities for secure and interesting work. Humans need something to do during the day that is productive. We need to, as a republic, is vote this into happening. But one has to really care and get involved, or at least pay attention to the candidates, and converse with hem and their platforms.

 

[rgp]

I heard an interview a few months ago with a lady who was living in a tent in a public park. She had been offered shelter in a former hotel building that was bought by the county. She refused it because she did not want to follow rules regarding alcohol and the use of street drugs. She did not want to go to drug counseling and she definitely did not want help finding a job. IMO, she does not deserve housing at other people’s expense. One of the problems we have today, is that many of the so-called homeless want help but only on their terms. The idea of “beggers can’t be choosers” offends them. There is a difference between the truly homeless and street people.

I agree here completely !

 

[VaughanJB]

But one has to really care and get involved, or at least pay attention to the candidates, and converse with hem and their platforms.

Well, I think we've hit on the problem with this argument.

It's built right into our society. People feel better about themselves because they have a larger house, a newer car, designer clothes, and so on. They tend to judge themselves against people who have less and wallow in it a bit, rather than help those below them on a social scale. Success, socially, again depends on have not's being out there.

When I was working I did a lot of interviewing and hiring/firing for companies. What got me about hiring is the desire of businesses and managers to define needs/wants in a very very narrow way. They get very specific about skill sets, until they've defined a robot of sorts. This is especially true of the industry I was in (IT). Like someone who knew C++ couldn't learn Python?!? Or someone who had used an accounting system in business A couldn't quickly learn how to use the system used by business B. No-one wants to take the slightest risk, or even think of potential. It's a great shame. I expect a lot of great candidates get passed by because they'd only used Version 2, and they wanted Version 3.1........

 

[VaughanJB]

I heard an interview a few months ago with a lady who was living in a tent in a public park. She had been offered shelter in a former hotel building that was bought by the county. She refused it because she did not want to follow rules regarding alcohol and the use of street drugs. She did not want to go to drug counseling and she definitely did not want help finding a job. IMO, she does not deserve housing at other people’s expense. One of the problems we have today, is that many of the so-called homeless want help but only on their terms. The idea of “beggers can’t be choosers” offends them. There is a difference between the truly homeless and street people.

Many? How did you deduce it was many?

It seems to me that the only homeless to ever reach the media and the drug addicted and diseased. You can't expect to pick up a drug addicted person and have them turn into a suburbanite by handing them the keys to a door. On the other hand, there are people that are homeless for many other reasons, be it ill-health, losing jobs, etc. For the drug addicted, they need treatment first and foremost.

I don't think drug addicted people who turn down accommodation with rules are choosing the street over a home. They're addicted, and the choice is largely out of their hands.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Well, I think we've hit on the problem with this argument.

It's built right into our society. People feel better about themselves because they have a larger house, a newer car, designer clothes, and so on. They tend to judge themselves against people who have less and wallow in it a bit, rather than help those below them on a social scale. Success, socially, again depends on have not's being o8ut there.

I think this description is based on convenient logic. Those that have, have. Not because there is a lower class. They do define themselves by the amount of $ they have, that is true, but that doesn't automatically "create" the have nots. Our poor exist, in the mass that they do, because the machine feeds those who have. That is all they care about. Is that THEY are fed. *&^% the have nots. Jobs should never=money. Jobs should always represent a way to better our society.

When I was working I did a lot of interviewing and hiring/firing for companies. What got me about hiring is the desire of businesses and managers to define needs/wants in a very very narrow way. They get very specific about skill sets, until they've defined a robot of sorts. This is especially true of the industry I was in (IT). Like someone who knew C++ couldn't learn Python?!? Or someone who had used an accounting system in business A couldn't quickly learn how to use the system used by business B. No-one wants to take the slightest risk, or even think of potential. It's a great shame. I expect a lot of great candidates get passed by because they'd only used Version 2, and they wanted Version 3.1........

Yep, it is narrowed to a point of dehumanization.

 

[VaughanJB]

I think this description is based on convenient logic. Those that have, have. Not because there is a lower class. They do define themselves by the amount of $ they have, that is true, but that doesn't automatically "create" the have nots. Our poor exist, in the mass that they do, because the machine feeds those who have. That is all they care about. Is that THEY are fed. *&^% the have nots. Jobs should never=money. Jobs should always represent a way to better our society.

Yes, and no. Part of what allows people to have things is the cost. Business relies on lowering the cost of everything to its very minimum, with very few exceptions. In order to have things cheap, someone has to earning very little.

This always makes me curious when people talk about moving manufacturing back to the US (or the UK). Fine, that can happen, no problem. But who is going to be able to afford the goods they make? Let's not forget the reason manufacturing went abroad in the first place. The wages paid to labor in China, Vietnam, Taiwan, are not feasible in the US. No-one could compete. So, are these people really saying they are willing to pay 10X or 20X (or more) the cost of their products to support US manufactured items?

People who put iPhones together in China earn less than $3 an hour. In India they get less than $200 a month, and in Vietnam it's $1.28 an hour. Apple are slowly moving manufacturing out of China to these other countries because they can save money! Yet do people avoid Apple products? Of course not. In fact, they're popular. Doesn't this suggest we really don't care?

As such, the middle class very much relies on the have-nots.

 

[oldaunt]

{{It's built right into our society. People feel better about themselves because they have a larger house, a newer car, designer clothes, and so on. They tend to judge themselves against people who have less and wallow in it a bit,}}

This does not apply to everyone, just the shallow, self involved people.

 

[Kir7]

May we be rewarded according to our merits. Bible