[flagged]
Even the more short-term solution of just giving people housing and letting them take the next steps is controversial in the US, for IMO stupid reasons. Taxpayers here don't want to give other people stuff for free, for the most part, even if doing so would make the taxpayers' lives better too.
Then again, $200B could house a lot of people. A quick search suggests there's in excess of 650,000 homeless people in the US. I'm sure that's an undercount, so let's round that up to one million. That's $200,000 per homeless person. Some will need more in order to get and stay on their feet (say, people with serious mental illnesses or substance abuse issues), and some will need less (like someone who had their working hours reduced and is now coming up short on rent).
Of course, that $200B wouldn't go to solving homelessness, even if we didn't have to spend it on other people's religious wars or to fight against other people's imperialist tendencies (yes, I recognize some amount of hypocrisy there). But it's fun to think about what we could do if it did.
Ultimately, though, is it more important long-term to help Ukraine than to fix our homeless problem? I don't think there's a clear answer there. I'm not comfortable in a world where people like Putin find little resistance to invading neighboring countries (not to mention other certain dictatorships that will feel emboldened to do the same if the rest of the world doesn't care). I'm really disappointed and saddened by the state of things when people have to live out on the streets, though; that's a pretty big deal.