MI lawmaker introduces homeless bill of rights

[km1125]

Yes, 100%. Homelessness drags down quality of life for cities (**cough** San Francisco). Homeless people need assistance, and should never be banished to life on the streets.

Any assistance the state provides should come with responsibilities for the homeless person. I don't have any issue helping folks though some unforeseen events in their lives that put them out on the street, but if THEY don't actively work towards being able to STAY off the street post-assistance, then they don't deserve more assistance. Institutionalize them, perhaps, but they should not "qualify" for ongoing support.

Deserve? You are an idiot. How much time have you spent with homeless? You have earned your deplorable badge for the day.

Government shouldn't be in the business of charity. Are we talking about productive citizens where an unforeseen situation put them on the streets, or are we talking about folks who are unable to function consistently on their own?

[Graham Wellington]

I view homelessness in the aspect that no sane person would choose to be that way longterm. Most people down on their luck would take the temporary assistance to turn their fortunes around and move on.

Those that view it as a way of life most likely have severe mental issues and need long-term help. Which is why Democrat efforts to affirm and encourage that behavior is downright cruel.

[km1125]

I view homelessness in the aspect that no sane person would choose to be that way longterm. Most people down on their luck would take the temporary assistance to turn their fortunes around and move on.

Those that view it as a way of life most likely have severe mental issues and need long-term help. Which is why Democrat efforts to affirm and encourage that behavior is downright cruel.

We're 100% in agreement on that part. Although I would venture that not all fit into the "severe mental issue" category. SOME have been led to believe that they can survive on their own by "sponging" off folks and see it as somewhat of a challenge on a day-to-day basis. I know at least a couple that fit into that category. Yep, they're not operating with a full deck of cards, but they COULD be "fully functional" in society if folks wouldn't be affirming and encouraging that behavior.

[TC Talks]

I view homelessness in the aspect that no sane person would choose to be that way longterm. Most people down on their luck would take the temporary assistance to turn their fortunes around and move on.

Those that view it as a way of life most likely have severe mental issues and need long-term help. Which is why Democrat efforts to affirm and encourage that behavior is downright cruel.

We're 100% in agreement on that part. Although I would venture that not all fit into the "severe mental issue" category. SOME have been led to believe that they can survive on their own by "sponging" off folks and see it as somewhat of a challenge on a day-to-day basis. I know at least a couple that fit into that category. Yep, they're not operating with a full deck of cards, but they COULD be "fully functional" in society if folks wouldn't be affirming and encouraging that behavior.

You must have never helped anyone who is not capable of living independently. This makes you a leech on society that relies on the reciprocal relationship of grace. I think you are the lowest form of human leech, sucking all the benefits of a wealthy society without giving back. You are also an idiot. God will banish you.

[km1125]

I view homelessness in the aspect that no sane person would choose to be that way longterm. Most people down on their luck would take the temporary assistance to turn their fortunes around and move on.

Those that view it as a way of life most likely have severe mental issues and need long-term help. Which is why Democrat efforts to affirm and encourage that behavior is downright cruel.

We're 100% in agreement on that part. Although I would venture that not all fit into the "severe mental issue" category. SOME have been led to believe that they can survive on their own by "sponging" off folks and see it as somewhat of a challenge on a day-to-day basis. I know at least a couple that fit into that category. Yep, they're not operating with a full deck of cards, but they COULD be "fully functional" in society if folks wouldn't be affirming and encouraging that behavior.

You must have never helped anyone who is not capable of living independently. This makes you a leech on society that relies on the reciprocal relationship of grace. I think you are the lowest form of human leech, sucking all the benefits of a wealthy society without giving back. You are also an idiot. God will banish you.

There's a big difference between folks who are actually incapable of living independently and those who CHOOSE or ACT like they're incapable. And there's a whole group of folks who have no faith in humans to adapt or improve themselves or their situation.

[TC Talks]

I view homelessness in the aspect that no sane person would choose to be that way longterm. Most people down on their luck would take the temporary assistance to turn their fortunes around and move on.

Those that view it as a way of life most likely have severe mental issues and need long-term help. Which is why Democrat efforts to affirm and encourage that behavior is downright cruel.

We're 100% in agreement on that part. Although I would venture that not all fit into the "severe mental issue" category. SOME have been led to believe that they can survive on their own by "sponging" off folks and see it as somewhat of a challenge on a day-to-day basis. I know at least a couple that fit into that category. Yep, they're not operating with a full deck of cards, but they COULD be "fully functional" in society if folks wouldn't be affirming and encouraging that behavior.

You must have never helped anyone who is not capable of living independently. This makes you a leech on society that relies on the reciprocal relationship of grace. I think you are the lowest form of human leech, sucking all the benefits of a wealthy society without giving back. You are also an idiot. God will banish you.

There's a big difference between folks who are actually incapable of living independently and those who CHOOSE or ACT like they're incapable. And there's a whole group of folks who have no faith in humans to adapt or improve themselves or their situation.

Who do you think chooses to live on the street?

You really are obtuse.

[km1125]

Who do you think chooses to live on the street?

You really are obtuse.

There are PLENTY of folks that actually make that choice. I'm sure that they'd rather live in a secure dwelling, but they are unwilling to do even the most basic things (like show up and perform menial tasks for an income) that would get them off the street. They have a disproportionate view of the value of their labor, and are unwilling to prove employers wrong in that assessment. And there's too many "well intentioned" people who reinforce the errant perceptions and exacerbate the problem.

Of course, there's also PLENTY of folks who make their own living off of any of those folks who live on the street. They run "charities" and "non-profits" that supposedly are there to help those folks, but they don't really solve any of the problems. They just make sure there are enough folks staying in that housing limbo so they can justify their own existence while reeling in the paychecks month after month after month. I have a much larger problem with THOSE folks than the folks who are actually on the street. THOSE folks are actually the worst grifters.

There are a portion of people on the street who really should be institutionalized. They are a small fraction of the overall problem and that problem could be solved too.

[TC Talks]

Who do you think chooses to live on the street?

You really are obtuse.

There are PLENTY of folks that actually make that choice. I'm sure that they'd rather live in a secure dwelling, but they are unwilling to do even the most basic things (like show up and perform menial tasks for an income) that would get them off the street. They have a disproportionate view of the value of their labor, and are unwilling to prove employers wrong in that assessment. And there's too many "well intentioned" people who reinforce the errant perceptions and exacerbate the problem.

Of course, there's also PLENTY of folks who make their own living off of any of those folks who live on the street. They run "charities" and "non-profits" that supposedly are there to help those folks, but they don't really solve any of the problems. They just make sure there are enough folks staying in that housing limbo so they can justify their own existence while reeling in the paychecks month after month after month. I have a much larger problem with THOSE folks than the folks who are actually on the street. THOSE folks are actually the worst grifters.

There are a portion of people on the street who really should be institutionalized. They are a small fraction of the overall problem and that problem could be solved too.

You have no idea what you are talking about. 85% of those experiencing homelessness on the street suffer from mental health challenges. Try doing research before typing. Plenty and Some are just ways to say "I'm pulling it from my well worked asshole"

[Rate This]

Who do you think chooses to live on the street?

You really are obtuse.

There are PLENTY of folks that actually make that choice. I'm sure that they'd rather live in a secure dwelling, but they are unwilling to do even the most basic things (like show up and perform menial tasks for an income) that would get them off the street. They have a disproportionate view of the value of their labor, and are unwilling to prove employers wrong in that assessment. And there's too many "well intentioned" people who reinforce the errant perceptions and exacerbate the problem.

Of course, there's also PLENTY of folks who make their own living off of any of those folks who live on the street. They run "charities" and "non-profits" that supposedly are there to help those folks, but they don't really solve any of the problems. They just make sure there are enough folks staying in that housing limbo so they can justify their own existence while reeling in the paychecks month after month after month. I have a much larger problem with THOSE folks than the folks who are actually on the street. THOSE folks are actually the worst grifters.

There are a portion of people on the street who really should be institutionalized. They are a small fraction of the overall problem and that problem could be solved too.

You have no idea what you are talking about. 85% of those experiencing homelessness on the street suffer from mental health challenges. Try doing research before typing. Plenty and Some are just ways to say "I'm pulling it from my well worked asshole"

They suffer from mental health issues and as a result many of them refuse help and choose to live on the street.

[Matt]

How does this law help the homeless? It really does nothing to help, other than to affirm their current place in life and allow them to continue on that path.

I would say your post will help you on the path to hell. Homeless people are people, and this law only encourages and banishes them to life on the streets.

I agree that this only protects their rights. Housing and adequate funding for mental health services would be solutions. Are you suggesting that this is what the bill should include? Please don't give me the "pull themselves up by their boot straps" speech.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Provide funding for housing, mental health services, education. Not this "bill of rights" that does none of that. It only affirms their right to continue on being homeless, and tries to justify it as some sort of noble situation.

Homeless people need our help. Not Democrats telling them that they can live on a sidewalk indefinitely and then patting themselves on the back for their humane treatment of the homeless.

This law is addressed specifically at police departments who are using nuisance laws to criminalize homelessness. If the police did their job there would be no need for this law. Are you willing to have some of your taxes go to support getting people into housing?

When these people are aggressive, they must be dealt with, unless you want urban areas to be ghost towns.

[Matt]

https://www.woodtv.com/news/michigan/mi ... of-rights/

Under this proposed law aimed to help the homeless, we would see, among other things:

The right for homeless to take steaming shits on our sidewalks

The right for homeless to set up shop outside of businesses, accosting and panhandling, driving customers aways and
eventually businesses

The right to set up shop in libraries and other public buildings, accosting other people, panhandling, and shitting wherever
they see fit.

Seeing the success San Francisco has had with taking this stance, Rep. Dievendorf is committed to see Michigan become another Progressive paradise.

You don't have to go to San Francisco. Most of the behavior you describe occurs in Ann Arbor all summer, with no police presence on the sidewalk.

Liar. Is this another TCSU/Ben Zonia alt account?

[TC Talks]

How does this law help the homeless? It really does nothing to help, other than to affirm their current place in life and allow them to continue on that path.

I would say your post will help you on the path to hell. Homeless people are people, and this law only encourages and banishes them to life on the streets.

I agree that this only protects their rights. Housing and adequate funding for mental health services would be solutions. Are you suggesting that this is what the bill should include? Please don't give me the "pull themselves up by their boot straps" speech.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Provide funding for housing, mental health services, education. Not this "bill of rights" that does none of that. It only affirms their right to continue on being homeless, and tries to justify it as some sort of noble situation.

Homeless people need our help. Not Democrats telling them that they can live on a sidewalk indefinitely and then patting themselves on the back for their humane treatment of the homeless.

This law is addressed specifically at police departments who are using nuisance laws to criminalize homelessness. If the police did their job there would be no need for this law. Are you willing to have some of your taxes go to support getting people into housing?

When these people are aggressive, they must be dealt with, unless you want urban areas to be ghost towns.

I agree with you, but respond to the behavior, not to a class of people. Police (in departments that are too militant) can be lazy and use tactics for an entire class of people vs individuals. This is very similar to much of the tactics which triggered the Black Lives Matter movement.

[bmw]

I sure hope you don't claim to be a Christian, because your post would help you find a place in hell... I think you are the lowest form of human leech, sucking all the benefits of a wealthy society without giving back. You are also an idiot. God will banish you...

Who died and made you the king judge of who will be banished to hell in the afterlife?

[TC Talks]

I sure hope you don't claim to be a Christian, because your post would help you find a place in hell... I think you are the lowest form of human leech, sucking all the benefits of a wealthy society without giving back. You are also an idiot. God will banish you...

Who died and made you the king judge of who will be banished to hell in the afterlife?

Well it certainly isn't any conservative christian. Let's face it, they're looking for a payout or a way to secure political control.