> and you propose to establish this how, precisely? Depends on the community. Doesn't mean it's difficult. > The US has spent several trillion since the 1960s

> and you propose to establish this how, precisely? Depends on the community. Doesn't mean it's difficult. > The US has spent several trillion since the 1960s on poverty, and while it caused a substantial reduction in levels of poverty (especially among the elderly), poverty remains with us as a problem. The US has spent several trillion on "end poverty" theater. US anti-poverty programs are intentionally designed to exclude as many people as possible. Much of the money spent, is spent on ensuring that people who conservatives have decided don't deserve aid, don't get aid, with reams of paperwork to validate that those in need are deserving. These barriers are severe enough to prevent many people from even being able to apply, and instead of reducing the barriers, the solution has been to pay case workers to leap some of the barriers for those in need--not only does this not work, it also is expensive. The solution to homelessness is homes. Not shelters where you have no privacy or ownership of the space where you can keep pets or possessions. Homes. This is not complicated. Poverty, mental illness, bigotry, unemployment, etc., are all related problems, but they don't have to be solved to solve homelessness. Look at Zuckerberg and Musk's net worths, then look at the number of homeless, then look at the cost of land and building a modest house, and do some napkin math. Yes, I'm aware a sudden demand for housing would drive up the cost of land and building houses: double it and the numbers still work. Yes, there are other potential issues, but none of them are unsolvable. We need to stop pretending this is more complicated than it is.