No, they arent special circumstances. They are typical. Seriously, did you know anyone in their late teens and early 20's who never had a roomate? Its kind of ironic, that you use the assertion that "I am avoiding an argument" while you yourself completely avoid dealing with the numerous obstacles that reality throws up against your desire for societal engineering being able to have a positive outcome.

I am not desperately doing anything but pointing out that your logic is overly simplistic, and unrealistic. It does not, will not, and can not be beneficial to those of us who live in reality. Your premises are faulty, your data is lacking and if you are trying to answer the question of "How can we improve living for the poor while lessening welfare outlays" your mental model is wholly insufficient to provide the answer you seek.

The path to prosperity is less govt tinkering. Its really that simple. More prosperity equates to more people working, and less people on welfare. When more people are needed for employment, demand for labor increases and supply decreases pushing wages higher.

You make absurd conclusions on the basis that politicians should play SimCity, except they are all uniformly poor at it and reality is far more complex than any simulation.

More people do disagree with me for now, however noone has ever made a case that popularity and morality are one in the same. Or popularity and correctness, or popularity and anything but.. popularity.

The net result of your policies, despite all the intentions and simplistic moralizing in the world will be quite simple: More poverty, less prosperity, less opportunity, less liberty, and a generally worse living environment for everyone - not only including, bus especially for the people you purport to help.

And that, is the hard reality. The results speak for themselves, and the results are poor.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)