You are making a lot of assumptions about my remarks that are inaccurate.

First, when I say affordable housing, I don't mean "government owned or subsidized projects built to serve poor people." I mean that as literally as can be meant: Housing that is affordable for a certain subset of the population.

Historically, the US had a lot of small, cheap rentals and those have largely gone away. For example:

The United States saw a decrease in single room occupancy housing during the period of 1960s and 1970s urban decay. For example, in Chicago 81% of the SRO housing stock disappeared between 1960 and 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy

Second, I'm not suggesting building affordable housing only in big cities. The entire US needs additional affordable housing.

For every 100 families living in poverty on the West Coast, there are no more than 30 affordable homes

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/every-100-families-living-pove...

The history here is that we had savings rates that exceeded 50% some years during WW2, the soldiers came home and had money in the bank and also help from the government to buy housing as part of their benefits. So the ladies with factory jobs were asked to give up their factory jobs and go home so men could have jobs and many of them were happy to do that (though not all) and this is where we get the Baby Boomer generation.

It is a historical anomaly where the US had an extremely large middle class population with working class values that had survived the Great Depression and they were thrilled to be homeowners. And houses built in the 1950s were typically 1200 sq ft and held an average of like 4.5 people, IIRC. Today, the average new home in the US is over 2400 sq ft and holds one less person on average than in the 1950s.

Meanwhile, we have a terrible homeless problem and single young people are expected to rent a two or three bedroom place designed for a nuclear family and get roommates. We used to have SROs, boarding houses and other things as a common market based option for young people just starting out who weren't married, didn't have kids and didn't have a lot of money. We have largely eliminated those options and then wonder why there is a problem.

The 1950s probably saw Peak Nuclear Family (tm) for the US. All of our housing policies and financing mechanisms are rooted in that era and it is like a ghost continuing to haunt and terrorize us. Meanwhile, our demographics have diverged and we have more single young people, single parents, and childless couples and virtually none of our housing is designed for these people. It is almost all designed for a breadwinner dad, a homemaker mom and 2.5 kids to live happily ever after in, never mind that this is practically a myth today.

I'm well aware that building poverty housing has the potential to deepen the problem. I'm absolutely not talking about building poverty housing. I'm talking about building stuff that isn't insanely oversized, isn't aimed at a small subset of the population -- the mythical old fashioned nuclear family with a stay at home mom that is nearly extinct -- and isn't insanely expensive.

That's vastly different from what you are talking about.

And your "I'm not American, but I know better than you do what is best for your country, never mind that I am completely misinterpreting your statements" isn't any more pleasant to deal with than when upper class Americans tell me that we should ship all the poor people to rural hell holes or something.