Do you believe that everyone deserves food and housing, regardless of ability to work?

[Lyric]

I don't mean caviar and mansions, and I also don't mean scant beans and rice in a hovel. I mean an adequate amount of everyday-type foods and an apartment, house, or mobile home that fits the needs of the family, neither too large nor too small, with vital utilities (water, power, heat) included. The kind of living situation where there are no treats or luxuries or privileges for the able-bodied unless you work for them, but nobody ever starves or dies of cold/heat either.

71 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes. These things are a human right, and should be provided for everyone in a society as wealthy as ours.
	60 (85%)
	Yes, but only for families with children, elderly people, and people with disabilities or illnesses.
	0 (0%)
	No, society should not function this way. Food and housing are privileges that must be earned.
	1 (1%)
	Other (please explain below)
	10 (14%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[99Forever]

1. I would also include medical care to that list.

[get the red out]

13. Yes

Good addition to the list.

[Avalux]

18. Agree with this! It should not be tied to income (or lack thereof). n/t

[bvar22]

22. YEs! Yes! Yes!

These are the values for which I joined the Democratic Party.

The 2nd Bill of Rights

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
---President Franklin Roosevelt, SOTU, 1944[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

There was a time in my living memory when voting FOR the Democrat
was voting for the above values and goals.
Sadly, this is no longer true.

--bvar22

[daleanime]

151. Hell yes....

[steve2470]

23. +1 nt

[yeoman6987]

102. Most have these basic items already

Housing is provided along with heat depending on location. The food situation needs to improve or at least stop messing with it. The housing of all the benefits that are provided is most successful. The food is the worst situation. The medical is improving. Food is in worse shape then medical.

[tblue37]

115. Housing is not provided to or even subsudized for an awful lot of impoverished people,

and even those who do get some help are often housed in conditions that are disgusting or dangerous--or both. If housing were really provided, we wouldn't have so darned many homeless people in this country!

[tblue37]

116. I am horrified that anyone here doesn't consider food and shelter to be basic human rights. nt

[Lyric]

140. I agree but I assumed everyone here already agreed with that.

Food and housing seem more likely to inspire differing opinions.

[leveymg]

2. Sounds like the Welfare State as we used to know it before Bill and Newt agreed to unmake it

Are you sure you've got the right campaign Icon attached up there?

[NCTraveler]

9. Perfect parody of purity. Love it.

I can actually see someone making this argument for real. +1. Very witty.

[Ken Burch]

117. It's the truth.

Bill and Newt just threw the poor to the wolves, and no greater good came of it.

It's not "purity"...it's called having a soul.

[leveymg]

132. Thanks. I sorta like having one,

even if I call it a social conscience.

[Lyric]

142. I agree that welfare reform was a terrible mistake.

But Hillary is not Bill, and this is not 1996.

[LanternWaste]

3. Deserving regardless of ability work, and regardless of which side of an imaginary red and blue lin

Deserving regardless of ability work, and regardless of which side of an imaginary red and blue line on map any one person is born on.

[Warpy]

4. Not all disabilities are visible ones

If anyone had bothered to look at the lives of multiple generation welfare families, they would have seen things like borderline mental retardation, depression, and other illnesses that aren't apparent to the naked eye.

I know because I was on welfare once and I got to know a few of these people.

Anyone with the ability to get off welfare does so as quickly as possible. I did and against medical advice. Other people simply could not.

[Romeo.lima333]

5. how would these things be provided

im reminded of the long lines in russia for toilet paper

[RobertEarl]

7. Take from the rich?

There is plenty enough to go around and take care of all of us. The problem is some hoard to excess.

[Romeo.lima333]

35. agreed and corporations too get rid of the tax loop holes that allow corporations to pay 0 taxes

take money from the war budget

[sabrina 1]

15. The same way they are provided in most civilized countries. And even ones we don't consider

to be civilized. Libya eg, where it was the law that every person must own a home, especially those with mental health issues. Of course now that we brought civilization to Libya, all of that is gone. Same thing in Iraq, where women actually had what we women don't have here yet, equal pay for equal work. Both those countries provided free education to all their citizens, free Health Care all of which we took away from them.

[polly7]

31. Makes me sad every time I think of that. nt.

[sabrina 1]

150. Me too Polly. I notice the silence on Libya these days, as those civilians we supposedly went to

save, are attempting to flee the democratic paradise we created for them falls further into anarchy. And the 'saviors' in Europe, our 'allies', are not so willing to take them into their own countries, after helping to destroy theirs.

Where is the outrage I wonder, what happened to all the cheer leaders for 'going to Libya to save the people'?

Countries are destroyed, then left to fend for themselves, once the REAL GOAL has been accomplished.

And those of us who woke up in time to oppose that tragic brutal assault on Libya, were vilified for predicting exactly what is happening.

Nice to 'see' you polly

[polly7]

153. Nice to see you too Sabrina!

It's heartbreaking to see article after article re the Libyan people trying to escape with whatever dangerous means they can. Nobody cares about them now - now that Libya (and as a result, the rest of Africa) is open for 'business' - fuck 'em. (Sorry for the language but this really gets me angry to think about).

[Romeo.lima333]

56. there's 43 million people in poverty in 2013. so the government does what buy 43 million homes

and or apartment buildings across the country and distribute them to people in poverty does the government maintain the 43 million homes. they'd probably have to, the government would be responsible for water heaters, leaky roofs , broken windows etc
how would they get fed is the government going to produce the produce for the poor or will they be given something like a card that they can take to any store and get food. that's the kind of stuff I mean. and how would it be different than welfare?
no one should have to suffer food insecurity.

[hifiguy]

62. There is an interesting analogy to be drawn here.

I am reading Nomi Prins' It Takes A Pillage, and if you haven't read it yet, do so NOW, and according to her figures the government could have paid off nearly all of the sub-prime mortgages that went blooey after being "securitized" by the banksters (and being used as leverage for multiple layers of loans upon loans that nearly destroyed the economy) for around $1.3 trillion dollars. A lot of money, but between 1/10 and 1/20th of what the Fed, the Treasury and Congress wound up giving to the banksters with virtually no conditions attached.

Direct action is always cheaper, much cheaper, in the long run, than involving middle men.

[truebluegreen]

81. True.

If they really wanted to fix the economy, they could have simply given the people free money, instead of shoveling it out to the banks. Similarly, if we really wanted to end homelessness, the best thing to do is first give the homeless homes.

Everything TPTB know...is wrong.

[sabrina 1]

66. Why is that happening in the most wealthy country on earth? Have you been attention to

the explanations provided on almost a daily basis?

Your question is the WRONG question. The question should be and IS, 'why are this countries rich resources increasingly going into the hands of a small group of uber wealthy Americans, taking them FROM Americans who have as much of a right to benefit from their OWN resources as this small group has?

Have you seen how our wealth, going back to Reagan, is distributed?

How would you react if, eg, you live in home with approx 12 family members. 10 of whom work to bring money into the home. But 2 of these family members contribute NOTHING to the family in terms of earning anything. However, as soon as the fruits of the labor of the other 10 workers are brought home, these 2 grab most of it for themselves, leaving only crumbs for those who actually earned it?

If you're okay with handing over all the money you and your other family members earned, to the two who have done nothing to earn it, hoarding it for themselves even while those who earned it cannot afford the necessities of life, then I get why you are asking this question.

[arcane1]

78. I'd add: taking them FROM Americans who CREATED THAT WEALTH IN THE FIRST PLACE!

There seems to be a national myth that wealth is created by the wealthy, all on their own. I hate that myth.

[hifiguy]

106. Abe Lincoln didn't buy it either

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

The quote is from his First Annual Message to Congress in 1861

[uppityperson]

96. Do each of those people living in poverty live alone? No one in families? Should each child & infant

get their own home?

You are very generous but I bet parents and children and couples would still like to live together, could share a home.

[LanternWaste]

17. Basic housing and food often reminds particular individuals of Russia...

Basic housing and food often reminds particular individuals of Russia...

(seems both of our premises are predicated on the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy)

[sabrina 1]

48. Actually it only reminds very propagandized Americans of Russia. To the vast majority of the

residents of this planet, it reminds people of European Social programs where their nations' wealth is shared with all of its citizens.

But here in the US, we have had, since the McCarthy era, a deliberate attempt to compare any sharing of this nations great natural resources with ALL of its people which IS their birthright, with a long ago, historical failure of a state claiming to be a Socialist state.

That of course benefits the greedy power-hungry oligarchs in this country, who have somehow managed to convince the masses that while THEY, the unwashed working class, do NOT deserve a share in their own natural resources, it leaves it to them to grab ALL of what really belongs to the entire population, all for themselves.

And we in the US are such a small minority on this planet, completely cut off and out of touch with the rest of the world.

[truebluegreen]

82. +1

[Starry Messenger]

19. We can do better than two-year olds in rural counties drinking soda from their baby bottles.

How stupid to extrapolate straight to rationing.

[Romeo.lima333]

32. i dont believe i said anything about rationing

[Starry Messenger]

36. Then wtf do lines in Russia have to do with providing food and housing?

Shortages in the USSR came largely with the reintroduction of market reforms, in the late 80's and 90's with perestroika. Next time post something that makes sense, and people won't mistake your meaning.

[Romeo.lima333]

41. cause im assuming the government would be the ones running it and with a congress like this

what do you think would happen -

[Starry Messenger]

46. The government runs lots of programs that do great with realistic funding levels

that allow them to function. The only thing preventing more of them is congresses like this one.

[Romeo.lima333]

61. and congresses like this one will be something that will be a reality to any program like this

if run by the government. there were 43 million in poverty in 2013 that means 43 million homes that will have to be not only procured but maintained. im all for it btw it would mean that if I lost my income I wouldn't become homeless.

[Starry Messenger]

69. The cost to the federal government is presently $500 billion dollars a year for child poverty

Increasing federal housing subsidy programs right away would reduce child poverty by 20%, and that's just if we spent only $23.5 billion dollars. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/03/opinion/ctl-child-poverty/#73 It's costing us more money to keep things bad.

We have homes, we need to put people in them and expand jobs programs. Yes, congress is a problem. But the purpose of being here is to try to elect a congress that would put programs into place.

[jtuck004]

43. Well, we just paid thieving bank$ter/donors hundreds of billions of dollars to stick in their pocket

while letting them foreclose on 4 million families, while we watched 10 million people move down into poverty and another 30-50 million move nearer. We cut tuition assistance and encouraged students to take on more than a trillion dollars in debt. We LOST pallets of money in Iraq. We've essentially stopped hiring folks at the Federal level, which is about the only place a black person can depend on for being color-blind in their hiring. We pay corporations trillions in subsidies for food, drugs, medications, all at prices far inflated from the rest of the worlds, while we get less value for it. We...

The list could go on. We could easily afford it.

The real question is what we lose by treating our neighbors like this for the profit of a few, and what that will do to any future this country might have.

Whether one wants to admit it or not, an injury to one is an injury to all. We make sure our neighbor is ok, because that's where the opportunities come from for you and your family, that's where the strength and security of our country comes from. So we have a self-serving duty to make sure everyone is lifted, not just the friends of the party currently in power.

-> If we fail in our responsibility in the most powerful and richest country in the world to provide opportunity to overcome the negative effects of our unrestrained capitalism, we will soon NOT be living in the most powerful and richest country in the world. <-

Interesting: The more we don't move, the more we don't act, the more likely it is to change around us.

[Romeo.lima333]

63. agreed trouble is congress

[jtuck004]

68. Read Stress Test, by Timothy "Killer" Geithner, and think of the thousands who have died in poverty

so he could make his bank$ter/donor friends wealthy on their backs.

Or listen to voters laugh at Killer's face in a Jon Stewart interview when the little weasel* tries to lie about it, here.


Not just Congress, not something I would ever agree to.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. Russia started from the classic Royalty to Peasant model...

The People didn't have much and the rich were VERY few.

Communism does NOT equal shortages and Capitalism does not equal plenty.

[1939]

75. When you try to run the retail economy like the army supply system, it does

When I was in Germany (early sixties), the commissaries were constantly having shortages of catsup or other canned type goods. Once an item came into short supply, everyone began to hoard it and it disappeared from the shelves. Stateside commissaries didn't have this problem only because the shoppers could go to the local Winn Dixie or Food Lion and get the item. Government run stores have no incentive to provide sales. Their only motivation is to protect their jobs.

I saw this in Vietnam. When i went back to find my wife's family in 1993, we had to take soap, toilet paper, shampoo, and whatever we needed. The commies in Vietnam realized they had a 1st magnitude CF and began to relax strictures on capitalist retail. By 1998, you didn't need to take anything to Vietnam, you could buy what you wanted.

Social Democracy: Social Security, single payer health care, government safety net, hell yes.

Socialism: Government control of mean of production and the economy, hell no.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

77. "everyone began to hoard it and it disappeared from the shelves."

That's called "capitalism".

It's the, "I got mine and screw you" business model.

[1939]

138. Not a business model, just a behavior model

I have a bottle of A-1 in the refrigerator for the few times i can have red meat. When it gets down to about a quarter of a bottle, I will buy another bottle. If I was unsure as to the availability of the next bottle, i might buy three or four when i had the chance.

Ever gone to the supermarket during as blizzard or hurricane forecast? The shelves get stripped bare.

During the gas crises of the early and late 70s, everyone who normally was driving around with 3/8 to 5/8 of a tank suddenly topped off completely emptying the gas station tanks and the local storage.

People do that under socialism as well. Anytime you think you aren't going to have something available as needed, you stock up on it. I have eight flats of bottled water in my closet. Why do I do this? Because hurricane season is beginning. If I lived in Michigan, I might have half a case in the closet.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

139. I lived in Michigan.....

You set up a spot in the cellar and make sure there's beer.

[Arugula Latte]

86. Uh, plenty of countries manage to do this. The difference is, they don't give all their

money to corporate CEOs in the form of tax breaks and contracts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. As someone one asked, "Am I my brothers keeper? Yes.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. I absolutely do!

[Bluenorthwest]

10. I would also include medical including mental health care and dental as basics.

Other things as well, actually.

[petronius]

11. Food, water, shelter, medical care, access to education, safety, and equal treatment in

all aspects of life seem to me to be basic societal responsibilities...

[leftstreet]

26. +1

[Arugula Latte]

87. Agree.

That we, the "richest" country on Earth, fail in all of these things is shameful. SHAMEFUL.

[hunter]

12. If a society can't provide for all as it allows some people to be very wealthy and wasteful...

... then that society ain't worth shit.

[LeftOfWest]

14. Yes.

I do.

[closeupready]

16. If anyone answers no, then I'd ask why do we feed/house convicts?

[theboss]

20. Yes with a but....

The one area where I tend to disagree with the ACLU is the idea that mentally ill people essentially have the right to refuse treatment. I'm all for setting up some kind of barracks like living arrangements for people with mental illnesses, but there needs to be some sort of monitoring of them. (I don't think I'm expressing this well).

[HereSince1628]

24. That's so loaded with preconceptions/prejudicial bias about people with mental illness.

Mentally ill people need to be concentrated so that they can be monitored??? REALLY? O.M.G.

Joblessness among the people with mental disorders is about 80%. Most of those people could work, and contribute to their own room and board, except that ~75% of people don't want a person with a mental disorder as a co-worker, or a neighbor (hmm about that barracks thingy?????).

[hifiguy]

27. I have first hand experience of street people

and a lot of them have serious issues. Something like that is not an unreasonable alternative. There are people who should not be running around loose and completely unsupervised and if you've ever been in any major metropolitan area's downtown there is always ample evidence thereof. People who are seriously disturbed and refuse to take their meds can pose a genuine danger to themselves and others,

[HereSince1628]

49. The post I responded had -no- conditioning about varying seriousness of mental disorder

just a flat statement. I cant' say how it may get edited...

Yes, there are -some- people who should be hospitalized or participate in routine clinical day-care. -Some-.

As repeated studies have shown, even among people with -serious- diagnosed mental disorder their dangerousness as revealed by an event involving a threat, altercation or assault in a given year is very marginally greater than that of the general population...that comparison is pretty close 5% for the general population and 7% for the 'seriously' mentally disordered...schizophrenia, anti-social personality, borderline personality and bipolar disorders. Which is to say 93% of the -seriously mentally disordered- aren't involved in any such events in a calendar year.

The states also show that big leverage on dangerousness is substance abuse which triples the likelihood of a violent act in both the general population and among the mentally ill.

[hifiguy]

57. People who take their meds regularly and can be monitored by

something like a weekly check in shouldn't be in a quasi lock-up. I think we agree there.

The disruptive people and those who refuse to take their meds need close supervision. I think we can also agree on that.

[Maedhros]

29. The answer is properly-funded mental health facilities with professional staff providing care

rather than simply bare-bones housing.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. "(I don't think I'm expressing this well)"

Try it in German.

[lpbk2713]

21. Yes of course.

Where it says "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", there's no "except for" after that.

[hifiguy]

25. Food, housing and basic medical care

are what is necessary in order for a society to call itself civilized. Hell yes.

[Buzz Clik]

28. I don't consider housing a human right.

I do believe in providing assistance to those in need, but only because that's how the country works.

[RobertEarl]

45. What?

Only because that's the way the good people of the world work is why you are willing to go along with taking care of people?

It's a good thing you are not involved with any government.

[Buzz Clik]

50. Do you understand the concept of charity?

Only because that's the way the good people of the world work is why you are willing to go along with taking care of people?

I never cease to be amazed how DUers can and relatively benign statement that is contrary to their opinion and rephrase it into something vile.

"What? You like maple syrup on waffles? That's because you feel all hardwood forests should be either logged into oblivion or burned to the ground!!!!111"

Fucking ridiculous.

[RobertEarl]

55. Eh?

You wrote:

"I don't consider housing a human right.
I do believe in providing assistance to those in need, but only because that's how the country works. "

I repeat, it is a good thing you are not involved in any government. The lack of integrity and the lack of compassion shown in your words is quite evident and such lack has no place, imo, in government.

[Buzz Clik]

64. Whatever.

There's a long list of things that people "need" that are not human rights. I have no problem separating myself that way from the mainstream left (or wherever your point of view falls on the spectrum), and I have no problem paying taxes to provide some of those needs.

People help other people because it's the humane thing to do, not because it is demanded as a human right.

I guess I've been in far too many countries where surviving is so hard that I am not at all moved by the demand that anybody who wants something can get it for free under all circumstances.

[Arugula Latte]

95. And you're a-okay with leaving it all to mercurial charity in the "richest" country on the planet.

The 1 percent needs its tax shelter; the military contractors need their billions. Now THOSE are human rights worth defending.

Those are some priorities you've got there.

[Buzz Clik]

109. We both know I said nothing of the kind.

[arcane1]

79. And if that "charity" is nowhere to be found, then what?

[Arugula Latte]

92. "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

[Buzz Clik]

111. Nothing goes with Dickens quite like a glass of ...

... bullshit.

[upaloopa]

30. I keep saying this with every one of these

kind of posts. If you agree we should do this where will the money come from?
I work in county government and we do budgets every year for the next fiscal year. We always have a long list of things we want to do but we are limited by the amount of available revenue.
So if our county decided to house and feed everyone who could not house and feed themselves we would have to raise revenue to cover it. That means increase taxes on property owners and increase sales taxes and vehicle license fees.
This is a two edged sword. You want the service you have to pay for it. Who is willing to pay more taxes?
I know the quick answer is tax the rich or print money. That is no more realistic than the other side of the sword.

[LanternWaste]

34. I'm more than happy to pay additional taxes

Being hardly what the rational mind would ever call rich-- or even comfortably middle-class, I'm more than happy to pay additional taxes to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. The surprisingly simple way Utah solved chronic homelessness and saved millions

"The story of how Utah solved chronic homelessness begins in 2003, inside a cavernous Las Vegas banquet hall populated by droves of suits. The problem at hand was seemingly intractable. The number of chronic homeless had surged since the early 1970s. And related costs were soaring. A University of Pennsylvania study had just showed New York City was dropping a staggering $40,500 in annual costs on every homeless person with mental problems, who account for many of the chronically homeless. So that day, as officials spit-balled ideas, a social researcher named Sam Tsemberis stood to deliver what he framed as a surprisingly simple, cost-effective method of ending chronic homelessness.

Give homes to the homeless.

Tsemberis’ research, conducted here in the District and in New York City, showed this wouldn’t just dramatically cut the number of chronically homeless on the streets. It would also slash spending in the long run."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/

[upaloopa]

53. We do the same thing in our county.

I work on homeless grants and other homeless funding. I understand what "housing first" means. It still takes having the revenue to do it.
There is no such thing as a magic bullet no matter how much we wish there was.

[RobertEarl]

40. How much does your county spend on roads?

What is more important? Roads or shelter?

The establishment has made a choice. Roads for cars and trucks are more important than providing shelter for humans.

And that sucks. Time for a real change in priorities.

[Starry Messenger]

42. You don't think we should tax the rich?

Because that's what we used to do, and it worked. We passed a millionaires tax in CA and it's brought in 13 billion in extra revenue. It's not rocket science.

[upaloopa]

58. I know all about the Millionaires tax.

It is used for mental health treatment of children. I work for the Alcohol,Drug and Mental Health dept of Santa Barbara County.
I am not opposed to taxing the rich. The rich are and it is political.

[Starry Messenger]

65. Well, that's sad for them.

There are more of us then there are of them.

[upaloopa]

71. We need to have the power

[Starry Messenger]

72. It's been done before. It is realistic.

[Cleita]

98. You are in Santa Barbara County? I thought you were in SLO.

Even better. You have so many more rich people than we do and you have all those oil company interests you should be taxing until it hurts. Those polluting assholes need to pay and pay. also now they are trying to bring oil bomb trains through our populated areas with Alberta tar sands crude. It's a crime. I tried questioning the ConocoPhillips PR team about how this was going to benefit us. Will I pay $1 a gallon instead of $4 a gallon. Oh no. It's only the first step. Then it will got someplace else out of state for further refining. No it won't help me at the gas pump.

[upaloopa]

104. Yes Santa Barbara is where work.

Live in Lompoc but moving to Santa Maria next month
Imagine an oil train falling in to the ocean somewhere along the coast.

[Cleita]

108. It's going by small working class communities, poor communities.

You know where the RR track goes. They don't just fall into the ocean. They burn and are very volatile if there is a derailment. Nothing the Union Pacific PR people, nor ConocoPhillips could tell us is convincing as to the safety. I hope our City Councils and Boards of Supervisors reject this.

[Cleita]

94. Our county should be taxing the many people who have vacation homes here.

It's not their primary residence and many of them are from out of state. I think they should be paying an extra 4% in property taxes if it's not a primary residence with the proceeds to go to the county treasury.

[Cleita]

83. That's because the county shouldn't be doing it alone. Local governments

need the help of state and federal governments to do this especially in underpopulated counties like ours with less of a tax base. Now in our county we are going to build a fancy new animal shelter. When when of our county supervisors whose name I won't mention was asked why helping homeless animals had a priority over homeless people, the answer was that this had a better chance of happening. He also stated that the best way to help the homeless was to put them in permanent housing, like what is happening in Salt Lake City. But he also said the animal shelter had a better chance of becoming a reality.

I'm not offering any opinion here but stating what I have observed and heard. You and I live in the same county. So it seems there is a way. It's up to those in local government to find it. I'm sure there's a lot of untapped resources out there if one bothers to look.

[One_Life_To_Give]

33. Big fan of everybody doing something!

Some people might not be able to do much. But I think it's important that everyone feels they are contributing and feels that everyone else is contributing. So along with Food, Housing, Medical we also deserve a Job.

[TheKentuckian]

144. That model is dying at least as it has existed for a few generations.

There will be less and less jobs to spread around, it is increasingly about resource distribution.

[Vinca]

37. There was a good article in "Mother Jones" a couple of months ago that explained how

giving homeless people places to live is actually cheaper than letting them stay on the street using only emergency services. All most people need is a chance.

[DawgHouse]

67. I think it was this article

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-solution-to-homelessness-utah

[polly7]

38. Absolutely, along with medical care.

People who don't have to worry about being beaten in the street or trying to find shelter and a meal a day get - hope. Without hope, many do not find a reason to try to improve their situation, value themselves enough to get medical treatment or even care whether what they're eating is destroying them. The means to get or stay healthy also means disease is spread less easily, ER costs are lowered and those with mental illness are taken care of as well - lessening any possible threat those with violent schizophrenia, for example, are to those around them. People with hope go out into the community and help others, they find jobs, they start businesses, they contribute with tax dollars, they contribute as functioning citizens.

[jtuck004]

47. No, and I don't like the framing. I think we have a duty, a strategic necessity, to make sure

it is available, to make sure we are as strong and secure as we can be.

That dumb frame about whether individuals "deserve" something is a Republican question - not something I would waste my time on.

[frankieallen]

51. "ability to work" is different than "desire to work". Let's at least make the conversation

interesting.
what should be provided to those who choose not to work, make little to no effort to work, and or make excuses not to work?

[leftstreet]

93. Why not make it more interesting?

Should someone have a "desire to work" for minimum wages?

[frankieallen]

147. If you work hard and do a good job, you won't be

making minimum wage very long. It's called starting at the bottom, which is what I did, making 5 dollars an hour.
I worked hard, gained experience, and now I earn a very good living. This is how %99 of successful people did it.
A small percentage got a life and a fortune handed to them, and no it's not fair that money grubbing Wall St tycoons get rich of the hard work of others, pay no taxes, and laugh at the working man, so you can sit around bitchin about it or you can go out and build a life for yourself.
That was the point of my OP.
By the way, if you can't work, at least in my state, you are provided food, shelter, and excellent health care. If the people who could work but don't would get off there ass there would be plenty of resources for the folks that can't. So if you want to put the blame on why there isn't enough provided to the disabled, you should be pointing your finger at the able who take from the system when they should be adding to it.

[truebluegreen]

103. Shoo.

[Starry Messenger]

112. How busy of a day do you think all those hedge fund assholes who got gov't $

in the form of bonuses have? Do you think they are worth $1000 an hour or more? Do you think they work harder?

[frankieallen]

145. No, but that has nothing to do with the question

[Starry Messenger]

149. It is the essence of the motivation for asking such a question.

[frankieallen]

154. ok, I am curious how, can you explain?

or do you just have another meaningless one liner?

[LWolf]

155. You see people who don't want to work.

I've never seen that.

It's interesting how the lens one brings to an issue changes what one sees.

I've seen people who chose not to work because they were needed to care for family members, or because they wanted to finish an education, or because the jobs they could get offered little to no net benefit.

I've seen people not working because of physical and mental disabilities.

I've seen people not working because they've lost hope, because they live in fear, in desperation, and don't know how to lift themselves out of it.

I've seen people not working because they simply can't find someone to hire them.

I see people in crisis, and care more about them as humans than about their productivity. That's the lens of empathy.

You see through a lens of judgement. I think my lens is bigger, broader, deeper, and more encompassing.

I think every human being should have access to safe, clean shelter, sanitation, warmth, clothing, healthy food, and transportation.

I think every person who wants a job should have one...a job that pays a living wage.

I think working people should have access to quality child care.

I think every person should have easy access to free health care, paid for by taxes.

I think every person should have access to free public education, all the way through trade school or university.

[Thinkingabout]

52. If someone has the ability to and they do not have a big stash of money to provvide their needs

Then they should be willing to work, laziness is not a disability. Those who are disable to work is not a problem. I wonder about those who thinks the way our nation works and not willing to work must not be interest in providing themselves with shelter, food and etc. If they do not want to work to provide for themselves why should the rest of us work to provide for them.

[randys1]

59. Might end up we cant provide for everyone IN OUR CURRENT trade status

but if we used taxes to loan to start ups, create manufacturing here while simultaneously putting up tariffs over time, slowly.

We could actually have an ECONOMY capable of this Northern European Democratic Socialist utopia which I believe is possible.

Just appropriately taxing the rich and corps, again, wont be enough.

Have to take back some of the jobs

[truebluegreen]

60. Totally in favor of "Mincome"

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-mincome-experiment-dauphin

Also totally in favor of ending homelessness by giving the homeless homes...first.

[SheilaT]

70. If you think not everyone deserves food and housing, then you think

some people deserve to starve in the streets.

[Cryptoad]

73. All Gubermint program should be Progressive

The Wealthy should not be given food and housing,,,,, and the poorer you are the more you should receive as basic right

[BlueJazz]

74. Too many of our citizens are happiness-disabled by the rich and/or non-caring.

I would take it even further. I've known people that can't work, not because they're disabled physically but just plain "screwed up".
I would vote to take care of them.

[HockeyMom]

76. A major difference that separates us from Republicans

We all maybe have our minor differences, but I think this is a MAJOR Democratic Party Platform.

[Cleita]

80. And even a little extra for a movie and dinner out now and then.

[arcane1]

85. Just like Jesus always said. He hated poor hungry people, right?

You worship the anti-christ

[uppityperson]

88. speedy, aren't you?

[arcane1]

91. LOL Likewise!

I had to get that in before the nuke

[gollygee]

89. Let the poor starve and die of exposure!

I don't understand how anyone could vote for people to not have basic needs. Even Milton Friedman was in favor of a guaranteed minimum income. This shouldn't be controversial.

[IVoteDFL]

90. Absolutely

and if baffles me that everyone doesn't believe this.

[dawg]

97. I'm going to split hairs here.

I believe everyone should be guaranteed food and basic housing. But you said "deserve". I don't think someone who is unwilling to work deserves those things. But I do believe they should be provided as a matter of basic public decency.

[Elmergantry]

99. Cool! Im sick of the 8 to 5 grind

Food, shelter, medical care guaranteed and I don't have to work for it!?

Where do I sign up!

[daredtowork]

129. You might get a little bored and depressed

when ALL you have in life is a roof over your head and enough food to get by. People need more than that for quality of life - and that's what really drives people to work and achieve.

This is the basic fallacy of the GOP's continuous attack on the poor. They think people will "settle" in a static condition of life because they are too lazy to want more. But people have a funny way of not being satisfied with less. Put them in a concrete block apartment and make them stand with their nose pressed to the window on America's commercial streets and people have a way of start complaining and casting about on how they can earn some money for some bling.

But in a civilized society people won't be starving or sleeping out on the streets. People won't be exposed to the ridicule and street bullying of others. People will be enabled with autonomy, and they will be able to chose when to make their move and start climbing whatever ladders they choose to success.

[Elmergantry]

131. But dont forget the free medical care and wi-fi.

Would probably still have work a little,(door greeter at Wal-Mart) and besides I don't need much...iphones? meh! I wouldnt get bored, just would consider it an early retirement. Fill my time volunteering, visiting friends family, lot more Church time...hobbies (inexpensive ones for sure), and my favorite..sleeping in. Just like retired people, only younger and healthier. I think a LOT of people would take this up.

[daredtowork]

133. Free wifi?

Ah but you need devices to use that and they cost money.

But wait, you say...Obamaphones!

Well...if you keep a landline you can't have an Obamaphone. And even with an Obamaphone your data access is extremely limited. A couple map searches would probably use it up. The Obamaphone makes people want to be in a position to afford a better phone.

But wait, you say, don't local programs provide "free computers for po' kids?"

Well I've volunteered at working to build these computers before. Their capabilities are extremely limited. They have low memory, cheap graphics cards, slow CPU. These computers will help kids learn to use computers and give them basic Internet access if there is "free wifi" - but what they will mainly do is whet their taste for a better computer. Which they will only be able to get if the work for it.

By the way that terrible XBox Grandma got them for Christmas kind of does the same thing. If they want more games than the system came with - if they want to keep up with the kids at school - they will have to get an after-school job. I polished silver for my guidance counselor so I could get my first pair of Levis (what all the kids wore), when I could have just worn hand-me-down slacks instead.

The GOP fundamentally fail to understand how human motivation works. Providing basic food and shelter will not undermine the motivation to work - it will in fact increase the motivation to work by putting people in a position to accumulate a material identity. Dumping people out on the street, however, puts them in a position where they can't work - and calling them lazy after the fact is just mean-spirited and dumb.

[Marrah_G]

130. ~eyeroll~

That argument is tired and old. Next you will start talking about welfare queens driving Cadillacs.

[The2ndWheel]

100. From an existing in the universe point of view, no

No form of life deserves that. That's one of the ways humanity got to the top of the food chain in the first place. Not really giving a shit. That road is going to be built, it doesn't matter what ecosystem it may be altering in unknown ways.

Is there any form of life on the planet that eats or sleeps without having worked for that? Is there any other form of life that goes to the grocery store or pays rent?

[seveneyes]

101. Help those that need help and require those who are able to help themselves

Those of able mind and body need to pitch in.

[Elmergantry]

105. Your such a killjoy!

You mean if I am able to work for my food, clothing, and shelter I must or else go without these things? Well isn't that the way it is now?

But then we are talking about a "right" not an "entitlement" aren't we?. I already have the "right" to have real and personal property such as food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare, and the right to own a firearm, but I have no "right" to demand others must pay for it if I am able to pay for it myself by working for it.

So to the original poster, are we talking about an entitlement to these things? If so, then sign me up as I want to kick back and not work so much and still get these things, otherwise, these new "rights" are not really new at all.

[brooklynite]

107. Could you honestly devise such a house and food model?

[Generic Brad]

110. And wi-fi

Everyone deserves equal access to knowledge.

[FLPanhandle]

113. I have family members that would quit work tomorrow if the government paid for everything

The only reason they have jobs is to eat and have a place to sleep. Otherwise, they'd just do drugs and play video games all day.

Also, why would anyone continue to pay their mortgage if the the people next door are living for free? Talk about a collapse of the housing market and all the equity people thought they had from years of paying their loans.

I'm all for the government providing shelters for those without anyplace to go, but long term home? Nope.

[Cleita]

114. I'm sorry your relatives are such morons, but most people would look upon it as an

opportunity to get their shit together and get off assistance. I have known poor people in my life, on welfare, because they had no other choice at the time. But every single one of them preferred to have a decent job to go to and did when they were able to do it.

[FLPanhandle]

118. But what the OP is proposing is much better than welfare today

Of course people would prefer to work than try and get by on welfare. Even my ne'er-do-well relatives prefer work to welfare.

However, the OP is providing a home, food, and all the basics for life though. If I know 2-3 people that would toss aside work for that, then there are probably millions more out there who would do the same thing.

[Elmergantry]

121. Count me in!

With the free Wi-Fi I could spend all day on DU bitchin about what I am not getting for free. (Booze, Pot, hookers, etc)

[Cleita]

122. Except I think your odds are not correct.

There are always scofflaws who take advantage of a system, but to deny the majority some security so they don't fall through the cracks because one guy is going to spend his days at the beach doesn't seem right to me. Most of the needy people I know are really needy for one reason or the other but they could get their lives together if given a chance.

[FLPanhandle]

123. I'm fine with short term safety nets to help people get thier lives together and get back to work

But the OP is proposing allowing people to live their entire lives in the safety net.

I actually think a couple of million people taking advantage of such a scheme is an underestimate.

So, I'm with you on short term housing and food, I'm not for lifetime homes, food, etc for those who can work.

[Cleita]

128. Some people need lifetime.

What do you do with those who are disabled, handicapped or not born with the best assets to enter life?

My local Trader Joe's hires people with Down's syndrome to stock their shelves. I have noticed that many of the workers have been there for as many years as I have patronized the store. But there aren't that many opportunities for those people. Should they just go lie in a ditch and die?

[FLPanhandle]

135. Not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose or not.

what in my post is about handicapped, disabled, or folks with Downs Syndrome?

I've referred to able bodied capable workers.

If you can't comprehend that, then I'm done with your straw men arguments.

[Cleita]

136. You are right. No point in going further with you because your mind is

closed to the idea of minimum income security. It's meant as a safety net for you so if you lose your income for any variety of reasons you can fall back on it. Also it can open opportunities for people to increase their education, follow a dream or start a business. But as long as you think your money is going to support video game scofflaws you will never be enlightened to this idea.

[Elmergantry]

119. Working would be for chumps

Lets see: food, shelter, medical care, Wi-Fi, "And even a little extra for a movie and dinner out now and then"

GAUR-EN-TEED!

Whats not to like?

[Oktober]

120. Actually inability to work should be taken into consideration...

Having the ability to work and choosing not to is something else and should not be encouraged.

[Cheese Sandwich]

125. It's not worth the effort of trying to determine who is faking.

Better just to guarantee a minimum standard for all.

[Oktober]

126. Well... That certainly is... Lazy...

[Cheese Sandwich]

124. It's too hard to determine who is actually deserving of help.

It would be better just to guarantee a minimum standard of living for everyone.

We waste billions in bureaucracy trying to determine who qualifies for assistance.

[Omnith]

127. I love the question

It is thought provoking. I think deserve is the wrong word. I think everyone should be given those things. It's not a matter of deserving it. It's just what good people should give to those in need.

[Hiraeth]

134. I refuse to argue semantics over this. Love is all there is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. Yes, but I don't think it has anything to do with "deserve"

A society in which there are no hungry homeless is a better one.

[Lyric]

141. My own opinion is yes, and here's why.

If you take the survival struggle out of the equation, then people are free to pursue whatever "work" is most meaningful to them. How many of YOU would choose your current job over any other? How many of you are doing what you do because it's tolerable and it pays the bills.

Imagine a society where people are free to be artists and poets, shopkeepers and entrepreneurs, inventors and philosophers and scientists working like Tesla and Newton did. Being able to take great risks to develop a new technology or medication, because having your family starving and homeless is NEVER a threat again. Imagine taking the competition out of living, the cutthroat "every man for himself" mentality that isolates us and keeps us suspicious of one another. There can still be wealth and luxuries, but they must be worked for above and beyond the basic minimum. I think most people would gladly do whatever labor they could in exchange for special food, posher housing, etc.

We have the technology, wealth, and resources to feed and house every person in this country without harming any company's bottom line, except maybe the predatory payday loan lenders and their ilk, who rely on exploiting the impoverished to make their money.

So why not do it?

[John_Doe80004]

143. a litle too far left / progressive even for me

i think we should take care of the elderly / disabled but people who are not determined to have a permanent disability should not be taken care of indefinitely. we should slightly expand the system we currently have in place for the working poor, unemployed, elderly and disabled, but with that expansion we should be putting resources into into rehabilitation for the disabled, and job training for the unemployed. basic school education and secondary education along with healthcare should be a right. we should be putting resources into rebuilding and updating our infrastructure. we should be putting forth worker friendly policies that are equally balanced with business interests and repeal policies that allow manufacturing and other high paying jobs to be outsourced to other countries and we should be working on bringing manufacturing back to the country. everyone should be guaranteed a living wage for a 40hr work week. this is by no means a comprehensive list of idea's and reforms but it would be a good start.

[leftyladyfrommo]

146. In Kansas City even dogs are required to be provided with

adequate food, water and shelter.

[Telcontar]

148. If Takers cant support themselves, why should I?

The fact they exist engenders no feelings of responsibility on my part.




What, someone had to say it.

[Adrahil]

152. Yes, although....

I'd prefer a guaranteed basic income model.