[fragmede]

$10 billion would build a lot of homes. If you give homeless people homes, they're not homeless anymore.

The problem is also political, unfortunately. $10 billion isn't going to change zoning laws and a NIMBY attitude of freezing things in time.

If they like that point in time so much, they should build a museum, sheesh!

[Dylan16807]

> $10 billion would build a lot of homes. If you give homeless people homes, they're not homeless anymore.

But that doesn't answer the question. It's "a lot" of homes, but less than a tenth of what would be needed.

And you need a bunch of social workers too at minimum.

[pstuart]

That wouldn't be enough to do the job but it would be a great start if it was done right. My point was we've flushed $50B (and likely far far more) and what do we get for it? High gas prices. So hurray for the push for renewables and EVs, but there's nicer ways to do it.

> And you need a bunch of social workers too at minimum

Ok, sure. Remember, we're spending the $50B that's been lit on fire so this gives us more jobs and a happier country. And that money circulates in the economy rather than expatriated profits by the defense contractors.