> It'll save you some typing if you stick to relevant examples, is my point. It's telling that you haven't offered any counterexamples, which is understandable

> It'll save you some typing if you stick to relevant examples, is my point. It's telling that you haven't offered any counterexamples, which is understandable, since the whole idea you've posited that government can do this cost effectively is just totally absurd. > Taxpayers shouldn't be funding something they have no control over. Unsupported dogmatism, and of a silly variety: taxpayers do this all the time. > And as I pointed out and I'm not sure you read, my option is much cheaper than $600/month/person. You asserted it without offering any real support for it. Congrats. > Expecting taxpayers to swoop in and pay people's rent is also expensive, immoral, and disruptive. Your calculation about what's least disruptive is completely wrong, so nothing else you say about this is making any sense. > That isn't relevant and you are representing that moving houses is an insufferable hardship. Becoming homeless is quite a hardship, and would be a widespread consequence if anyone adopted your weird policy ideas.