Agree wholeheartedly. I'm British; our problems are quite different; but in my mind it's a similar principle. Something that sticks in my mind is a tendency t

Agree wholeheartedly. I'm British; our problems are quite different; but in my mind it's a similar principle. Something that sticks in my mind is a tendency to focus on "the poor". The sense that there's an undefeatable "poor" by definition. We need "housing for the poor", "jobs for the poor", and so on and so forth. This article is an example of it. It's basically saying "if you have no money bad things happen to you". Which is mind bendingly, blindingly obvious, in a world in which we've made money _everything_ and in which we've created conditions in which most individuals won't have much or any of it. A solid example of that sort of firefighting. What we actually need is for there to be no, or very few, "poor". For society to be less stratified, so that people can actually consider each other neighbours rather than essentially different species living on the same land. I don't know how to achieve it, but I know that food banks and homeless shelters and "affordable" housing and all of these tweaks are really papering over our inability to just come out and say.. something? Everyone who is willing to contribute to society gets to share in the wealth of it. I don't know what it looks like, but it doesn't look like the current situation.