Lahunken is wrong about Romania

During Ceausescu's reign of terror there were homeless people--many in
fact--but there was no "official" acknowlegement of homelessness by
Ceausescu, which for political purposes meant that it did not exist.
Many of the homeless during Ceausescu's reign were simply executed and
buried in shallow graves--or often they were imprisoned and allowed to
starve.

Miguel Lahunken may see Romania as having solved its homeless problem,
but I dont think he'd like to see a similar solution in his country.
Ceausescu's solution was to shoot the homeless, starve the homeless,
let the homeless die in prison. A coffin or a prison cell does not
count as a home for the homeless.

Ceausescu used everybody. Everybody was a slave. There wasn't
enough workers or funds for his canal project, which required plenty of
dirty work. Ceausescu was a perfectionist. He wouldn't waste anything or
anybody. The most unskilled people still had a place working on his
canal project, although it was just barracks for the night. We're not
talking about Brazil here.