Get a job, pay rent. I know, too obvious ...
it does not comply with international legal obligations to use the maximum available resources to ensure progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing.
huh?
they aren’t spending enough of others peoples money per poor person?
oh boohoo
What the hell is this?
What international obligations?
Who defined those obligations? What authority do they enjoy to create those "obligations?" Who gave it to them?
And above all else, how many divisions do they have to "enforce" those obligations?"
Last but not least, do any or all of these "obligations" violate our U.S. Constitutional rights?
Those rights are never, under any circumstances subject to a popular vote by countries who have no concept of "rights."
End of really dumb discussion.
Gotta love the euphemism “social housing”. Apparently they realize that calling it what it really is — socialIST housing — won’t sell well politically. It’s an Orwellian word game, though, designed to discourage people from being “against” it, since obviously if you’re against “social housing”, you must be FOR “anti-social housing”.
“Approximately 57,000 tenants in the private rented sector are currently in receipt of housing benefits. This is not ideal. Rents paid into the social sector are reinvested in social housing while those paid into the private sector go to landlords. As many tenants in the private rented sector receive housing benefit, this means that tax payers’ money is effectively subsidising the private rented sector.”
If I follow this logic, landlords should not rent to people “on the dole.”