A Man's Home Is His Subsidy


mhstahl's picture

Stossel could have done better with this.

Sec. 8 is a subsidy to landlords. They don't have to take it, but they likely would need to lower rent or allow apartments to stand empty otherwise (which effectivly raises everyone else's rent...).

The checks for rent never touch Mr. Gobin's tenant's hands, but are instead deposited directly into his-the landlord's-account...who's the "welfare queen"?

My folks have a couple of rentals, so I have some practical expierience with this. Against my advice, my Dad took a section 8 tenant about ten years ago(on high recommendation from a close friend)...it became a fiasco. In any event, the only reason the tenant got sec. 8 was because she was a single mother(recently divorced)-when the kid grew up, the subsidy ended and she left, not exactly willingly.

I've known five other women who had children when young and took Sec. 8 rental assistance. Some in public housing, some "private."  Not one of them does today.

It is my understanding that this is the case with most of these welfare programs-the overwhelming majority of recipients are single mothers, and it ends when the kids grow up. They don't live high on the hog.

Since I don't think government should do anything, I'm, of course, against these sorts of programs but I really do not think that it is helpful to mischaracterize them-especially when the reality is so apparent and easilly discovered.

If the delusional "welfare queen" meme was dropped, perhaps writers like Stossel could explain just how insideous, corrupt, manipulative, and twisted the "system" really is; but he would need to start by asking Mr. Gobin why he is on welfare rather than stroking him for inflammatory statements (notice Stossel uses the landlord as a reference, rather than telling us what he thinks himself or verifying the statements-bad journalism, he is doing nothing but passing along gossip)....and perhaps what his rent rate would be without welfare would be another good question.

I find the massive price supports and subsidies for farmers-that nail everyone at the grocery store-and the preposterous "defense" spending far more troubling.

But that's just me.



Samarami's picture

Mike is probably correct, and Stossel obviously misses the big picture. That's the way the "system" is set up: divide and conquer. This tactic diverts us sheep from paying attention to any real issues.

Keep the unwashed masses wiffing and waffing over "welfare queens" (which are indeed a pitiful story as to how stolen resources have created an entire "citizenry" of poor folks totally dependent upon the beast's machinations) -- which is a pittance -- while cheering "Support-Our-Troops" for the real criminal activity.

The enormity of the truth is incredible.