Well, just off the top of my head, something like a new WPA seems like it'd be a decent start, considering the infrastructure maintenance problems I keep hearing about. Is that "workfare"? I've heard "workfare" is bad, although again I'm not really sure why.

I have no objections to WPA-style programs, and think that likely would be a good solution. Heck, it worked once before.

The problem is that in addition to having let our infrastructure decay, we've let our social infrastructure decay.

That's no more an obstacle today than it was in 1935; the original WPA was an emergency measure, just as our notional revival would be.

It could be argued that the whole increase of drug use in USA is due to lockout and other effects

Oh, it could, could it? Well, then, "lay on, Macduff! -- and damned be he who first cries, 'Hold, enough!'"

"...where your day-to-day activities are forced to be about the most basic level of survival?"

Isn't the purpose of so-called "subsidization" to avoid this? (Not that it necessarily works in practice.)

There really aren't many homeless programs that subsidize living for a period where you can get back on your feet, in such a way as to not require that you stand in line for hours every day, so you can focus on finding a job, or similar.

Many of them (eg, food stamps) cut benefits when you're unemployed homeless, and focus instead on at-risk employed people.

Many kitchens require that you show up every day and spend large amounts of time on travel to-and-from, as well as waiting in line.