|
|
|
|
|
|
by hl5
3306 days ago
|
|
|
That home then passes on to their offspring, giving them one of the primary tools for staying out of poverty -- a safe place to sleep and store things like food and clothes. People who don't have the safety a home offers are forced to plan for the moment and not for the future. My explicit argument is $75 billion for healthcare to the poor goes in exactly which pockets? That's always been the scam: Help the poor pay your friend. |
|
|
Homes can be destroyed. They can be seized. They can be turned into debt obligations. Now try that with a vaccine.
> People who don't have the safety a home offers are forced to plan for the moment and not for the future.
People who don't have X are forced to plan for the moment, for many values of X.
> My explicit argument is $75 billion for healthcare to the poor goes in exactly which pockets?
$75 billion for X often goes in the wrong pockets, for many values of X. Why are you so stuck on the idea of housing as the one thing that's uniquely beneficial and immune to the problems affecting other kinds of aid? People who have actually studied the issue, including those who wrote the OP, seem to have reached a very different conclusion. I'm inclined to believe people who show their work, more than those who engage in evidence-free special pleading.