3 ms·

> I'm not so sure that giving folks a small welfare check and putting them in highly subsidized public housing projects is the best solution. The best solution

> I'm not so sure that giving folks a small welfare check and putting them in highly subsidized public housing projects is the best solution. The best solution to what problem, exactly? All of them? > I'm sure it does reduce poverty and homelessness with some, but does it also increase unemployment and alcoholism? It feels like you're shifting the goalposts here. Are you trying to find some kind of silver bullet where one "solution" solves all of these problems at the same time? Each of those "bromides" offers actual good solutions to each of those individual problems. Notable also is that the OP did not call it "welfare" checks or "highly subsidized public" housing. Those extra qualifiers make it quite clear what your agenda/already made opinion is, even when you're attempting to hide it in conciliatory/placating language.

stolenmerch 6y ago
> The best solution to what problem, exactly? All of them? The stated problems of poverty and homelessness (and perhaps secondary and tertiary problems). > Each of those "bromides" offers actual good solutions to each of those individual problems. I don't think they do, because they are poorly defined. How much money must be given to reduce poverty? A small welfare check? $1,000 per month in UBI? A $6,000/month stipend from your parents? How much poverty is reduced and how? > Notable also is that the OP did not call it "welfare" checks or "highly subsidized public" housing. That is exactly why I chose those terms, because OP didn't other than using "money" and "housing". They needed to be more precise, in my opinion so I used an established vehicle for giving money and housing as an example. I actually don't have specific policy in mind here, I just feel being too vague about these things doesn't actually help and tends to confuse things.

stolenmerch 6y ago

> The best solution to what problem, exactly? All of them? The stated problems of poverty and homelessness (and perhaps secondary and tertiary problems). > Each of those "bromides" offers actual good solutions to each of those individual problems. I don't think they do, because they are poorly defined. How much money must be given to reduce poverty? A small welfare check? $1,000 per month in UBI? A $6,000/month stipend from your parents? How much poverty is reduced and how? > Notable also is that the OP did not call it "welfare" checks or "highly subsidized public" housing. That is exactly why I chose those terms, because OP didn't other than using "money" and "housing". They needed to be more precise, in my opinion so I used an established vehicle for giving money and housing as an example. I actually don't have specific policy in mind here, I just feel being too vague about these things doesn't actually help and tends to confuse things.