> better and cheaper than the $750 going to drugs or alcohol? It didn't. That was one of the conclusions of the study being discussed. At the risk of stating

> better and cheaper than the $750 going to drugs or alcohol? It didn't. That was one of the conclusions of the study being discussed. At the risk of stating the obvious: someone who's homeless may need medical treatment or, you know, a home more than they need food at that moment. > Food credits or $750, you realize it's still coming from taxpayers either way? The method that costs much less to administer... costs much less to administer. > If someone is homeless it means that they already failed and need help. That's obviously not true. And also isn't how we view the taxpayer-funded fire department coming to put out a house fire.