this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
264 points (98.9% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
7675 readers
937 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The research is very clear about this as well. Many social support programs are good investments, even from a conservative fiscal perspective.
Housing First programs are one example. These are programs that give shelter to unhoused people first without requiring them to quit drinking, do drug testing, go to counseling or church, and so on. Not only do these programs directly save lives, they are more fiscally responsible than the continuum of care/ war on drugs approach that is typically used. This is because people who have shelter use fewer emergency services, need to go to the hospital less often, have less frequent contact with police, and so on.