right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...Housing?

Originally posted by Johnv:
"I think housing falls under the umbrella of "happiness" in the phrase. However, it should be noted that the founding fathers did not believe that everyone has a right to happiness. they have a right to the pursuit of happiness. Big difference. I believe everyone has a right to the opportunity of getting housing. But they must do something with that opportunity. The most common opportunity comes from working hard, saing a portion of your income, and buyng a house. That's what I did, and I didn't succeed until I was in my mid 30's (before that, I rented). I never expected housing to be handed to me on a silver platter."

John,
I would agree with you, for the most part. However, I would say that you "succeeded" in having the opportunity of getting housing when you rented. Why were you even able to rent? Because you worked. Now, were you happier after you were able to buy your own house? Probably!

I have nothing against Habitat for Humanity per se, because it is not gov't funded, by my understanding. However, I was looking at the income eligibilty amounts on one of the Texas websites, and saw 52,000. In my opinion, anyone who makes 52,000.00 a year, even with several children, can find adequate housing, be it "only" renting, and should not be entitled to a Habitat for Humanity House, their "sweat equity" invested or not. Another misconception we Americans have is that everyone is entitled to "own" a house.

 

Agreed.

Agreed.

 

Since the rental was not my own property, but someone else's, I guess I never saw it as a right I earned, but a privilege I obtained by way of paying someone rent. But I see where you're going here.

Neither do I. In fact, I support them 100%, literally. I'm a H4H volunteer, and have the beaten up hammer to prove it

H4H is not a handout, as you know. It is housing that is provided for those who have a need, but not so great a need that they cannot afford the monthy payment. The person's need must be sufficient, however, to warrant the neccessity of leaving their current living condition (such as multiple adults and children sharing a 1bedroom apartment). Also, the person must have good credit to qualify.

The house is sold to the applicant, not given, and that person must be able to demonstrate that they can make the monthly payment. H4H sells the house at cost, and at no interest (because the Bible says the poor should not be charged interest). That person must also put a minimum number of hours into the construction of their own home, and an equal number of hours into someone else's home.

 

The USofA since WW2, particularly since 1964, has been the best times and place for the working class in history. 90% of the "poor" would be poor any other time and place.

 

Let's think of it this way:

CRIMINALS get three square meals a day and a bed to sleep in.

Do criminals deserve more than a lazy person?

I think that housing in shelters should be guaranteed, contingent upon a pursuit of gainful employment.

 

Why? Where does the Constitution say anything about that right??

Of course, you have the right to desire that, but you have no constitutional basis for it.

 

C4K...if a government wants to take my money in taxes...they have a responsibility to care for me as a citizen if and when I cannot do it myself. But I could live on the street and rob people...thus fending for myself. I don't even have to worry about getting shot.

Especially in a country where the government IS the people like you all claim...I am flabbergasted that many of you are so careless as to anyone's plight but your own.

 

Actually, I have a question. The verse in the Bible that talks about if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat. I believe that is IN the church is it not? It is talking TO Christians in the church telling them not to help a "brother" with food if he doesn't want to work.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with those outside the Church who CAN'T work. Touche...

 

No problem with the viewpoint, but the OP referredd to a thread where it was claimed that this was a CONSTITUTIONAL right. It is not in the US Constitution, full stop.

 

Ok no problem. I was just trying to bring some interest into the discussion. The pursuit of happiness could include owning a home. And sometimes my posts do bring interest to a discussion. That's my goal sometimes.

 

Ignoring the fact that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are not in the Bill of Rights, when we look at the Bill of Rights our rights are secured from government interference. For instance, we have the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right to freedom of association, and the right to own firearms. That doesn't mean that the government has to produce a talk show where average citizens get to go and rant into a microphone about whatever they wish, it doesn't mean the government needs to build us churches, it doesn't mean the government should fly me across the country to visit my family, and it doesn't (unfortunately) mean that the government needs to buy me guns.

So if we put a right to housing and food into the Bill of Rights, the most we'd get is that the government can't come and take your food and house away (which wouldn't be such a bad idea considering some of the private property seizures that have been going on. . .) Our rights have always been contingent on our willingness and ability to seize those rights.

 

How many times does someone have to say something is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? I read that the first time.

Hey...we have a show here in Canada where average citizens can rant in front of a video camera...but I don't believe it's produced by the goverment.

As for your second paragraph...good point. I agree.

 

Why? Where does the Constitution say anything about that right??

Of course, you have the right to desire that, but you have no constitutional basis for it. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't claim that the constitution says that, but I think local/state governments should make sure the homeless are helped. If these fail, I wouldn't have a problem if the federal government got involved.

I was merely pointing out the absurdity that we give free food/shelter to those who have harmed society through criminal activity while there are homeless individuals who slip between the cracks.
What happens to them? A lot of them become criminals, and I can understand why--why sleep under the overpass when you can get a warm place to sleep.

The thing about the homeless is this: if you don't have a place to stay, you CAN'T get a job, even if you want one.

 

StefanM,

Part of the problem, as I understand, from a "what should society do" (aside from federal Constitutionality) standpoint, is that many homeless are homeless because they choose not to follow restrictions or conditions required by some private, or perhaps also, public shelters.

 

FTR, you are right about that. And those people should remain homeless if they so wish. We are coming from the perspective of those who would rather not be homeless.

I think there's more reasons why a homeless person can't find work and get off the streets today than in the past. The unnecessary necessity of someone having to have a degree just to work in a factory...when my dad did it for 33 years with grade ten. The need to have good credit and references just to get a place to live (hard for homeless people to get).

I just wonder how a homeless man can get off the street, get a great job and buy a home when he has a slim chance of even getting hired at McDonalds.

 

Half the people on food stamps are students and get off the system in 3 years or lesss. The other half stays on for generations.

 

Hmm...here...students can't get on it. They have to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for schooling and even for food. And we don't have sports scholarships here either.

There's a question. Should sports scholarships be allowed? A free education just for being a good athlete (and likely a lousy student) is ridiculous. How is that earned?

 

"I just wonder how a homeless man can get off the street, get a great job and buy a home when he has a slim chance of even getting hired at McDonalds."

Good question. Reason doesn't matter, a majority are not employable. In the bad old days they would have been committed to a county work farm or mental facility. 40 years ago 90% of the "mental" beds were legislated out of existance. Why? The politicians took advantage of court decisions to reduce the tax load.


The Supreme Court has decided that the mentally and physically defective people have a "right" to live on the streets as long as they are . . . harmless.

 

"A free education just for being a good athlete (and likely a lousy student) is ridiculous. How is that earned?"

"Sports" is our national religion.

Our masters keep the population under control with bread and circuses - cheap beer, vacations, sports . . . .