ok so let's take that as read for the sake of discussion.
how is that a refutation of the fact that providing these people with a moderate amount of resources so that they don't feel compelled to commit crime is a more effective way to reduce crime than a militarized police force which punishes them for having done crime?
firstly, food stamps and section 8 and "etc" generally result in having the economic resource to exist barely above the poverty line, IE those things are baaaaaarely a scratch above living in an alley and eating out of a dumpster.
secondly, there is a certain percentage of the human population which is just... fucked up. this is true of the rich, the poor, every strand of humanity in every direction. that sometimes those fucked up people are poor is no more the fault of 'the poor' than harvey weinstein is the fault of 'the rich'. though of course environmental factors can make such inclinations far worse.
thirdly, for the most part the answer to your question is yes. if you took every burglar and repeat-offender petty criminal and just gave them a house or a decent apartment and 45k a year, petty crime would plummet.
you probably wouldn't see an immediate change in social and cultural behavior from that segment of the population, because unfortunately humans tend to be highly susceptible to behavior and attitudes learned up to their early teens and it's extremely difficult for them to unlearn those, but within a generation or two you'd see a radical change in that portion of society.
And now their tactic is "defund police" aided by their political allies like Cori Bush, AOC and Jamaal Bowman. Because if you defund police, the criminals will have a much easier time.
an easier time of what?
"defund the police" as a political movement wants to take away military gear from cops, and to shift public spending away from the current paradigm of "assault, subdue, punish" and put money into "assist, rehabilitate, provide".
how does that change how easy it is to commit crime?
