Well, obviously recent experiments vis-a-vis home ownership being a societal benefit overall have resulted in, shall we say, mixed results. I'm just saying a) people shouldn't bitch about the little guy when they're a larger overall drain, and b) I'd have been just fine without the tax break - it's just gravy - and I'm betting you would have been fine too. I wouldn't have a problem with them getting rid of some or all of those kind of breaks. There's probably a pool there that buy homes that wouldn't without the gov't handout, but that money could be applied somewhere else. Society does derive a long-term benefit from stable families, it's true. Home ownership probably is a stabilizing factor for some families, although there's piles of anecdotal evidence that home owners fuck shit up, too.
But society would also benefit from giving some of that money to single-parent homes to provide child-care so those parents could go to school. It could also benefit from providing more counseling and education and medical care to pregnant teens, or hell, even to teens that are sexually active and not yet pregnant. It wouldn't hurt to try to give more of a hand to folks who can't seem to get off the drugs. It might help, also, to get rid of those limits that kick in when people get too much of one type of public assistance, making it so they can't get school loans or other types of help. I guess I'm just saying that - and maybe it's my bleeding heart - I tend to feel more for folks that are further down the social strata. Maybe it's white guilt. Maybe it's being stuck in a bastion of neo-con Fox "news" watching fascists. Maybe it's my innate capacity for love.
Look what you've done - you've turned me into 'sMets. When did I get so fuck*ng wordy?