How Government Handouts Foster Dependency

Section 8 recipients can become comfortably dependent on government assistance.

(Page 2 of 2)

“Here’s a lady that could definitely work. She actually showed me how to get benefits and play the system,” says Gobin.

Although Section 8 adds to our debt while encouraging people to stay dependent, it isn’t going away. HUD says it will continue to “make quality housing possible for every American.”

Despite $20 billion spent on the program last year, demand for more rental assistance remains strong. There is a long waitlist to receive Section 8 housing in every state. In New York City alone, 120,000 families wait.

Some are truly needy, but many recipients of income transfers are far from poor.

America will soon be $17 trillion in debt, and our biggest federal expense is income transfers. They are justified on the grounds that some of that helps the needy. But we don’t help the needy by encouraging dependency.

Government grows. Dependency grows.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • fish||

    How Government Handouts Foster Dependency....

    Feature!

    Oh yeah first bitchez!

  • ||

    John Stossel on how 2+2=4

  • Enough About Palin||

    It can also equal 11.

  • Agammamon||

    No, 11 = 3, 4 is 100.

  • Lexy||

    The engineer in me says "4". But the accountant in me says "whatever you want it to be".

  • $park¥||

    The Obama administration now proposes to spend millions more on handouts, despite because of ample evidence of their perverse effects.

    FTFY

  • Jubal Harshaw||

    Perverse effects, indeed! I went out and found what I thought was an honest job, then it turns out the FCC pays my check!

  • $park¥||

    It was a reasonable idea. But, as always, there were unintended consequences.

    No such thing. And you'll never get me to believe otherwise.

  • WTF||

    Yeah, isn't there some law about "foreseeable consequences are not unintended"?

  • ||

    Crafted of ferrous, it 'tis.

  • $park¥||

    Yes, but it's frankly a dumb law that I also don't agree with.

  • R C Dean||

    Tut tut, sparkster.

    Its merely a reminder that we should hold people responsible for the actual results of their actions, not the announced pretexts of those actions.

  • RandomJackass||

    Stossel could also have mentioned the other unintended consequence, which is the inflation of rental prices due to subsidy. That guy who is renting on his own efforts, he's competing for apartments with people who have extra cash in their pocket, bidding up the price of those apartments.

  • fish||

    Kevin Spaulding is an MIT graduate in Boston who works long hours as an engineer, and struggles to cover his rent and student loans. Yet all around him, he says, he sees people who don’t work but live better than he does.

    Clearly Kevin Spaulding is a "classist" or perhaps worse a racist! Kevin Spaulding should probably just not notice these things.

  • WTF||

    Racist, staight up.

  • Henry II||

    Does this Kevin Spaulding follow his neighbors around seeing what they do all do? Sounds like a creep. Section 8 supplements rent, it NEVER pays the whole rent. So those people are working, but maybe Kevin was not stalking him.

    I don't suggest we formulate housing policy based on second-hand hearsay from someonoe who doesn't know what he is talking about.

  • $park¥||

    "It doesn’t seem right," he says. "I work very hard but can only afford a lower-end apartment. There are nonworking people on my street who live in better places than I do because they are on Section 8."

    Proof that "smart" people aren't always smart.

  • ||

    Eh, just risk averse. You can only live off the government dole for as long as that can be sustained. After that breaks down, there's nowhere to turn if you don't have any earned assets. The fact that most people are aware of this is the only reason the moochers are even able to survive.

  • Henry II||

    Whatever, Kevin. I wonder who paid for his education? Loans? Fed loans? Does he know that MIT is highly subsidized by the fed govt?

  • Juice||

    Like dependency of rich beachfront homeowners on National Flood Insurance, Mr. Stossel?

  • fish||

    Again Mary if the government wouldn't provide it when they know homes are going to be swamped every 18 months or so eventually they would go away. Learn to listen...listen to learn!

  • Juice||

    No one is forcing John Stossel to be dependent on government handouts.

  • iggy||

    So you're saying that Stossel is right because even Stossel became dependent on a government handout? I'm glad you agree with the article!

  • Juice||

    I'm not engaging in a tu quoque here. He is correct. He is also a hypocrite.

  • iggy||

    No he's not. There's a government monopoly on flood insurance. There's no other way to have flood insurance. If the government had a total monopoly on schools, meaning there were no private schools or homeschooling, and someone who REALLY hated the schools still sent their kids there, that doesn't make them a hypocrite.

    If you have no other option, using something you hate is not hypocrisy.

  • Juice||

    You're right. I'm sure Stossel's life would be very difficult if he gave up his beachfront home.

  • iggy||

    Why should Stossel have to give up his property just because the government mandates insurance in the area? It's not an issue of difficulty, it's an issue of Stossel's property. You're basically arguing that he's a hypocrite for not selling property he doesn't want to sell, simply because the government has taken over the insurance in the area.

    Are there no government programs you take advantage of despite being opposed to them? I don't like the government using tax write-offs in order to incentivize certain behaviors, but if I am eligible for a write-off I'll still take it. I'm not going to give the government extra money as some bizarre protest that no one will notice, and Stossel shouldn't have to sell his property as some bizarre protest no one will notice.

  • WTF||

    So, because the government monopolizes flood insurance, you shouldn't have a beachfront home? Derpity derp!

  • Enough About Palin||

    I suspect he earns enough from TV and books to self-insure, were he permitted to.

  • HerseyK||

    I beleive he gave it up years ago. Why do you keep posting unsubstantiated claims.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    The gun in his ribs that helps pay for your social security does.

  • Juice||

    If I ever see a dime of social security I'll be surprised.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Oh so their checks have already bounced? We are more fucked than I thought...

  • fish||

    Again Mary...reading comprehension. Don't provide the subsidy and there will be a reduction in dependency. Mr. Stossel should lose his taxpayer subsidized insurance....today! The section 8 contingent should be weaned of their habit as expeditiously as compassion permits (that doesn't mean 10 years....three maybe).

  • Juice||

    Again Mary

    Look, I'll call you Betty and you can call me Al.

    Mr. Stossel should lose his taxpayer subsidized insurance....today!

    He could lose it voluntarily, today!

  • iggy||

    How could he lose it voluntarily? His house is somewhere where FEMA has MANDATORY flood insurance. That's why it's federally subsidized. How do you lose a mandatory subsidy voluntarily?

  • Juice||

    I didn't realize he was forced by fiat or circumstance to maintain possession of that house.

  • iggy||

    If the government of an area is doing something you don't like, you must immediately sell all your property in the area! Otherwise you're a hypocrite! The Juice has spoken!

  • Pippers||

    I think he was pointing out that it is his choice to live there. It's like moving next to a railroad and complaining about all the noise.

    No one will offer flood insurance along the cost. He should be glad the government is even offering it, otherwise no one would be able to live there at all. No loans would be given out for anything unless it was insured. No businesses, no utilities, no homes, nothing.

  • Jordan||

    So what? I live where I have to use PUBLIC ROADS! Clearly, I must move or else I'm not a pure libertarian.

  • ||

    Um, you guys do realize Stossel has stopped getting that flood insurance, right? Whenever he mentions having gotten it he always talks about how he felt guilty and stopped. Juice is a disingenuous troll, so I expect from him. You other guys, though, have to stop ceding the narrative to people like him. When you allow trolls to only bring into a conversation the parts of reality they like, it's harder to prove them wrong.

  • Brandon||

    Pippers, people lived along the 'cost' for centuries before federally subsidized flood insurance. In recent times, they even had electricity and water. Do you have a point that's not based on a demonstrably false, and really stupid, premise?

  • JSebastian||

    That's like saying its your choice to live anywhere. The government authority doesn't end, it follows you around. Unlike real things, imaginary government power is omnipotent and everpresent. People have to live somewhere, but no matter where that place might be (unless its another planet entirely) there is going to be some mafia , perhaps claiming to represent some collective and wearing funny hats and costumes, coming around with their protection racket.

  • Ron||

    lets apply that argument to the now mandated health care I now have to buy health insurance even if I'm Jesus and can heal myself.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    How would people not be able to live by the ocean if there was no flood insurance? People would just accept the risks and logistical problems (like utilities) as they had for hundreds of years before there was flood insurance. There are ways of adapting, like building on berms or pilings and buying an airboat.

  • Virginian||

    Archer [to airboat owner]: I've waited my entire life to say this exact phrase, "I'm commandeering this airboat!"
    Lana: Sorry, it really is an emergency.
    Archer: Of an awesome and ass-kicking nature!

  • burserker||

    the feds have recently come into my neighborhood and begun forcing people on my street to purchase flood insurance, even though there has never been a flood in the 28 years our houses have been standing. this is a direct response to build up their funds after the massive giveaway of Katrina. typical govt racket...

  • WTF||

    Stossel actually did a piece on the unfairness of forcing taxpayers to subsidize flood insurance for rich beachfront homeowners, and even used himself as an example.

  • Juice||

    I know. He saw the error of his ways and promptly stopped taking the handouts, right? Or did he become dependent on them?

  • ||

    ROOOOOOOOOAAAAAAADDDDDDZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I'm sure you have a point you're trying to make, but I have to tell you, it's not happening.

  • Juice||

    My point is that John Stossel is a hypocrite.

  • pmains||

    And you have repeatedly failed to make that point.

  • BuSab Agent||

  • BuSab Agent||

    Whoops. Semi-sugarfreed the link, I meant it to go to the first page of the article. Oh well, you can figure out how to get back a page from there.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He doesn't deny that it's welfare for rich people (including himself), so how does that make him a hypocrite?

    Maybe you didn't read the article. He's not blaming people for taking the welfare, he's pointing out that it's making them unnecessarily dependent on the government.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Um, are you talking to me? I don't think he's a hypocrite. Arguing AGAINST Juice.

  • ||

    Not to mention that Stossel sold his beach house after that, out of guilt. So he stopped taking advantage out of principle.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No BuSab, that was a response to Juice.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Damn threading. Either thread all the way or don't thread at all is my motto.

  • JSebastian||

    Is it really welfare if you didn't seek it out? If someone gives you something, and says "if you don't buy this we're going to cage you or steal your stuff", you just take it. Especially when you have as much stuff to lose as John Stossel. When the government tries this heist on the former middle class who doesn't have a pot to piss in and is being forced into public housing slums, they are gonna get their ass handed to them. The federal govt will overstep, and the people will lash out against this bullying, and whup the govts ass. It is the same thing that all governments invariably do.

  • Free Society||

    The federal government MONOPOLIZES flood insurance. Even if he wanted a beachfront property and could afford the high cost of said insurance, it's illegal for a company to sell it to him without federal underwriting. I was compelled to attend a government school, are you going to call me a hypocrite when I protest government education monopolies?

  • Juice||

    John Stossel was not compelled to buy and continue to maintain a beachfront property.

  • $park¥||

    John Stossel was not compelled to buy and continue to maintain a beachfront property.

    So your argument essentially boils down to "if you don't like it, leave." Who could have seen that coming?

  • Juice||

    But he does like it. He likes his beachfront property. He likes his government handout. Do you think he would celebrate when he stopped receiving it and had to pay through the nose to insure it?

  • iggy||

    No, but he'd do it. And he thinks he should do it. He doesn't have the option now, because the insurance is MANDATORY. The only option is leave the property or accept the government program. You're criticizing him for not taking a third option which he isn't legally allowed to take.

  • Juice||

    The only option is leave the property

    Bingo.

  • db||

    So the only people who deserve to have beachfront property are people who have no problem stealing from others? You have a strange morality.

    What if I bought a beachfront property, and one month after I closed on the sale, the federal flood insurance monopoly was ended, and I decided to continue living there, either taking my chances with no insurance or paying the market rate? Am I still a hypocite? To avoid accusations of hypocrisy, it is not enough to fight against the rigged system? One must wear a hairshirt as well?

  • Cavpitalist||

    What, exactly, is the point?

    Do you agree with the President murdering brown babies with missiles? Then get the fuck out, traitor!

    It's just dumb, this tack.

  • JSebastian||

    "Any of you bitches that don't want to get raped, get the fuck off the public street. And make sure you aren't displaying an ankle. And are accompanied by a male relative".

    I knew that sounded familiar.

  • $park¥||

    The only option is leave the property

    This is what Juice wants. In order to not be a hypocrite, he has to leave the property. This is the idiotic nugget of Juice's argument, i.e. "Love it or leave it."

  • BuSab Agent||

    Stossel DID leave his property.

  • Jordan||

    Juice is a real Murican.

  • Bill||

    He sold his beachfront property.

  • Free Society||

    Who's arguing that he is compelled to have a beachhouse? The problem is that he is compelled to get his flood insurance through the federal government, with all the moral hazards that come with it.

  • Pippers||

    Because no one else will do it. Insurance companies will go out of business if they were forced to offer it along the coast.

  • Free Society||

    Well you don't force them to offer anything anywhere, first of all. And flood insurance would certainly exist without government monopoly. That's a thinly veiled version of "but who will build the roads?"

  • Juice||

    Private actors would build roads in the absence of government. Private actors would not offer flood insurance to homeowners in flood prone areas.

  • ||

    "Private actors would not offer flood insurance to homeowners in flood prone areas."

    Think pricing mechanism.

  • iggy||

    Wait, what? If they were forced to give everyone insurance by the government, that would probably be true. But if the government wasn't forcing them and they could set their premiums based on risk, they absolutely would not go out of business.

  • Juice||

    No one would buy the insurance. People would either just risk it or "self-insure" because the premiums would likely be higher than the mortgage payment.

  • Free Society||

    You are simply wrong. Flood insurance would exist. The profitability of the product is directly proportional to the tendency of a location to flood. Yes therefore, certain areas would certainly not be covered by flood insurance THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. What don't you get?

  • iggy||

    You just spent the last half hour arguing that Stossel doesn't have to live there. So obviously people don't have to live there. So why should the government subsidize high risk behavior when a simple solution would be to not live in a high risk area?

  • Juice||

    iggy, are you arguing with me? Because you're not.

  • ||

    In fact Stossel DOESN'T live there any more. He sold his house out of guilt over having taken the money. Sort of undermines Juice's argument that Stossel is a hypocrite. If Stossel were making the argument while still taking the money, he would be. But not for declaiming past poor behavior. That's what we human beings like to call "reform". But I'm sure Juice either didn't bother to read that part because he only makes lazy arguments, or he doesn't care because he's a disingenuous troll.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No one would buy the insurance. People would either just risk it or "self-insure" because the premiums would likely be higher than the mortgage payment.

    In some very high risk areas, yes.

    So?

  • ||

    "No one would buy the insurance."

    Even if that's true, then that just means the market decided its not practical or economical to build houses on the coast. So what?

  • JSebastian||

    Dude, are you cognitively impaired? The market fixes this. The property will be worth less because of the "carrying costs".

    Who would ever buy an Italian exotic car that goes 200 mph? You know they break down , it costs like, 30K to do the major service..some of them you need to remove the engine for an oil change...and yet....they sell pretty well.

    Cheap, fast, and reliable...you can pick any two.

    The market sets the prices for cars, and it does the same for houses.

  • Juice||

    There are rich people all over the place who are not compelled to have the NFI because they did not choose to own a beach house.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    John Stossel was not compelled to buy and continue to maintain a beachfront property.


    I don't understand your preoccupation with these purity tests. The fact that Stossel had beach front property at one time that was insured by the government does not invalidate his case against government handouts, the same way receiving "free" government education does not make the case against "free" government education not valid.

    You're not arguing anything, you're just looking to avoid the argument by focusing on irrelevancies.

  • Juice||

    John Stossel: "I built a beach house because government encouraged me to"

    The government encourages people to do all sorts of things, John. Did you join the military because the government encouraged you to?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    The government encourages people to do all sorts of things, John.


    You don't think that the prospect of free money is encouragement enough?

    Mary has not heard of moral hazard. Probably the only living human on the planet who hasn't.

  • ||

    You seem to have missed the fact that all those things happened in the past.

    According to that same show where he told that story he no longer owns a beachfront home.

  • ||

    That was a response to Juice| 1.9.13 @ 1:27PM |#, who has a talent for making unfounded assertions and just plain ignoring the facts.

  • ||

    Under Mary's logic, no one should own a beachfront home.. EVER.

  • Free Society||

    Her logic is that being forced to interact with a monopoly is tantamount to endorsement of that monopoly.

  • Libertarius||

    By Mary's dubious logic, I should stop paying taxes because I despise welfare statism and what it has done to this country.

    I am an Objectivist, but I also work in the most heavily unionized (remaining) private industry in America. I love my work, but I have to be in a gd union in order to do it; does this make me a moral hypocrite? Absolutely not. Morality ends where a mandate begins.

  • JSebastian||

    Yes, you fucking hypocrite. You should have moved to Somalia, at the age of seven, rather than fail to live up to the lofty (and yet totally reasonable) expectations of whining crybabies on the interwebs.

  • ||

    That he stopped taking government handouts over libertarian guilt of taking taxpayer money doesn't at all make the case that people won't become dependent on handouts. Unless you think the majority of them are like Stossel?

  • Brett L||

    Is it the current owners' faults that NFI is so far below the actuarial rate that you can't buy unsubsidized flood insurance?

  • Juice||

    Would unsubsidized flood insurance ever actually exist (for areas that actually flood)?

  • iggy||

    Yes. Because fire insurance exists for places that frequently catch fire and you can still get car insurance if you get in a lot of accidents. It just costs you more. So private flood insurance would insure that people are actually paying based upon the risks of owning that property, whereas now they are not.

    Any more questions that are really easy to answer?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Plus there would be some people to go without said insurance, and when/if the shit his the fan, they will be caught holding the bag. As satan intended.

  • Juice||

    Like some people go without the NFI by not living an an Special Flood Hazard Area when they have the choice.

  • Jordan||

    And I hear they don't drive on public roads either. Such angels they are.

  • Free Society||

    The NFI promotes building entire communities in costly flood zones. It's a called a moral hazard. Are you trying to be this ignorant?

  • Jordan||

    You must be mistaking me for that guy over there defending the NFI. Now where did he go? Oh wait, he's a figment of your imagination.

  • Free Society||

    Nah I hit the reply button on juicebag's post. This is just how the boards line up replies... :(

  • Juice||

    No, it's actually a proper reply to Jordan's post. Roads will be built regardless. People will not necessarily build houses in flood prone areas without being able to socialize the costs.

  • Free Society||

    Holy fuck are you starting to grasp? If you don't pass the cost onto taxpayers, flood prone areas would not constantly be the epicenter of death and wealth destruction.

  • Jordan||

    Not all roads would be built, regardless.

  • JSebastian||

    Juice: "No, it's actually a proper reply to Jordan's post. Roads will be built regardless. People will not necessarily build houses in flood prone areas without being able to socialize the costs."

    Bullshit. People have been building their shit on flood plains for millennia. You think that Great Flood thing is just another bible story? Everywhere there has been human settlements, people have built in flood plains, usually right next to some big ass river or the ocean. For thousands of years, thousands of people per year have been watching their shit get swept away , drowning like a bunch of rats, and then sure as fuck, going right back to the same damn place and building more shit.

  • Jordan||

    Never mind. Completely misread your comment.

  • Pippers||

    No it would NOT exist. They used to offer it and lost too much. No insurance company that wants to make money will EVER offer flood insurance in areas that routinely flood. None. Zip. Nada. Never ever.

  • iggy||

    Then people wouldn't live there! Where's the problem? If there are places that are such flood risks an insurance will not insure them, then why in the hell is the government subsidizing people to live in such dangerous places.

  • Juice||

    Then people wouldn't live there! Where's the problem?

    You don't say!

  • some guy||

    People would still live there if they were willing to rebuild frequently. Just look at certain parts of SE Asia. People live in flood plains knowing they will have to move and rebuild frequently. They do so because the value of their home is less than the value of living near the river/ocean/city (which is easy to pull off when you live in a tin shack.)

  • BuSab Agent||

    Not to mention ancient Egypt where the entire population moved away during Inundation and came back after, because living part-time on flood plain was a lot better than deep desert.

  • Bill||

    Not unless you built it raised or hurricane-proofed. Then you could get lower rates, but still high depending on risk. If you tried to build low in a risky area the rates would be so high, it would discourage people from buying there or encourage them to raise it higher.

  • Juice||

    http://www.actuary.org/pdf/cas.....110715.pdf

    Private-sector insurance companies long had viewed the risk of flood events as uninsurable.

  • iggy||

    Then people wouldn't live there. Who cares? There was a town in Wisconsin that was totally wiped out by a flood. They rebuilt the town IN THE SAME PLACE because federal flood insurance allowed it.

    This town is in the middle of a valley, with a river very nearby. It floods a little bit every time it rains. Why are we paying so that people can live in such a ridiculously dangerous place?

  • Juice||

    Then people wouldn't live there. Who cares?

    But they do live there. And you are forced to pick up part of the tab. Poor people get to subsidize rich people. Fun.

  • iggy||

    And they shouldn't. We agree on this. Stossel agrees with both of us. We all agree. Why is this argument happening?

  • ||

    "Why is this argument happening?"

    That's how it thrives. By arguing against points that noone is making.

  • Shmurphy||

    Plus a bit of good ol' Stossel bashing, apparently.

  • JSebastian||

    You really think inland flood plains are populated by the 1 percenters? Guess what, they aren't. Most places in the US that flood are shitholes inhabited by a bunch of mouth breathing rednecks. When was the last time Malibu or Laguna Nigel flooded? Fucking never. People don't build their beachhouses at the high tide mark. Once in a great while, a hurricane like Sandy will wipe out a middle class suburb or the barrier islands of the Carolinas or the Keys. Those places are not full of "rich people". There might be *some* "rich people" there, but for the most part, these are just Walmart shopping, Chevy drivin po white folks (less its Nahwlins).

  • Free Society||

    There would absolutely be private flood insurance without a federal monopoly. It just wouldn't be 1) subsidized, 2) more restrictive. Of course not every single floodable area would be insurable, THAT"S THE POINT. If builders, developers and homeowners actually had to bear the huge costs of these disasters, they wouldn't be building in those areas. If they weren't building in these areas, fewer people would die and far far less destruction of wealth would take place.

  • iggy||

    Personally, I really wish the government would subsidize people to build their houses in the middle of rivers on top of gigantic stilts. It's unfair that private insurance is unwilling to offer coverage for such an endeavor.

  • Juice||

    There would absolutely be private flood insurance without a federal monopoly.

    Show me some evidence of this.

  • iggy||

    There are incredibly high risk places that are uninsurable because no one would be willing to pay the premium. But people shouldn't be developing there anyway. I don't understand why flooding should be uninsurable when plenty of other high risk activities can very easily be insured, albeit with high premiums.

  • Free Society||

    How about the existence of private carriers prior to the 1969 law? Or the existence of private flood insurance in legal jurisdictions not subject to a monopoly? Here's some google search crap I did in about 15 seconds. You should try.

    http://www.independent.org/sto......asp?id=36

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11......html?_r=0

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Show me some evidence of this.

    "THERE WAS NEVER PRIVATE INSURANCE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT BECAME INVOLVED HERPITY DERPITY DOO!"

  • Free Society||

    pretty much

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    Show me evidence of this.


    Here it is:

    http://www.allstate.com/home-i.....-main.aspx

    And it only took Goggle 0.32 seconds.

    Of course, that does not mean private insurance will insure all places. Insurance does not work that way.

  • JSebastian||

    Marriage is a lot more financially destructive to a lot more people than floods are, and the government doesn't subsidize it at all. In fact you get fucking penalized for being married. Despite that, millions of people get married.

    Flood insurance is the same thing. People want to live at the beach...they are gonna live at the beach. If they want to live in the bayou wading around in the swamp and eating mud and crawdads, then thats what they will do. Basically people are gonna do what they want, regardless of whether its a stupid shitty thing to do.

    Why do people waste hours of their life watching reality TV? I don't know...but millions of people can't wait to find out what's new with Honey Boo Boo or if Kim Kardashians ass has grown any since last week. Despite the fact there is no fucking benefit at all to this information!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Why wouldn't it? It might be too expensive to be practical in some flood zones, though.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    And it's too hot and arid to practically live in some deserts.

  • iggy||

    I wish I could live on the moon, but those air insurance premiums fucking suck.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I wish I could live in the future with a harem of red, green, and blue hos...but ...but...It must be the Republicans' fault!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    Would unsubsidized flood insurance ever actually exist (for areas that actually flood)?


    Would YOU insure a homeowner's house that is located in an area that always floods?

    The fact that the government does it does not mean it is prudent to do it. Government bureaucrats do a lot of stupid crap all the time.

  • Brett L||

    Sure. Also, floodplains change over time. I lived in a house north of Houston that took on 4 feet of water in '94 during a big TS and the water never even got close during Allsion in '01. But that was probably the result of better drainage, so someone else probably got flooded downslope.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    Like dependency of rich beachfront homeowners on National Flood Insurance, Mr. Stossel?


    Yes, same thing.

    Next question, please? You, in the blue blazer?

  • Henry II||

    Totally agree.

  • ||

    There's a section 8 colony a few blocks down the street. I see lots of cop cars there. No further comment.

  • fish||

    Well clearly the police have learned to game the system too! Shameful!

  • sarcasmic||

    That or they're trading stolen drugs for sex.

  • fish||

    Sarc drugs taken from dealers are not "stolen" they're forfeited. Huge difference.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Hmmm... around here, our cops trade stolen sex for drugs.

  • Pro Libertate||

    My wife has noticed that several people in the various homeschool groups she's involved in appear to be on public assistance with a spouse electing to stay at home, rather than work. While the latter is certainly a valid choice, electing not to work and to accept public assistance instead is not.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Yeah that is some bullshit. However, not having kids yet but a strong desire to homeschool the little unborn bastards, I have no idea how I am going to find the time/money to do it. In the past, there was the option of no school at all, but I have a feeling that won't fly.

    Maybe I can sell some organs or drugs or some of the children...

  • BuSab Agent||

    Homeschooled all my hellions to productive adulthood. The money is there if you set the right priorities. There's a big difference between what most people think are the necessities of life and what you actually need to not be dead.

  • Pro Libertate||

    With my wife home--who holds two (useful) graduate degrees--we're not as affluent as we might be. But we both think it's worth it.

  • $park¥||

    You damn patriarchal sexist. She only says she's happy to stay home because of rape culture. You've obviously beaten her enough that she knows better than to argue with you anymore.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Except that she's in charge of most things. I follow the Bill Cosby school of marriage and parenting.

    Dad is great!
    He gave us the chocolate cake!

  • ||

    "I don't remember when I lost it, or where I lost it...I don't think I ever had it..."

  • Pro Libertate||

    Exactly.

  • $park¥||

    So she took your hand, eh?

  • Pro Libertate||

    See, I hear this, then "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" starts playing in my head. All seventeen minutes.

  • ||

    So how often do the kids lie on you, Pro L?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Bill Cosby: [when his wife sees that he has given the kids cake for breakfast] I've always heard about people having a conniption, but I've never seen one. You don't want to see 'em. My wife's face. . .split. My wife's face split, and the skin and hair split and came off of her face so that there was nothing except the skull. And orange light came out of her hair and there was glitter all around. And fire shot from her eye sockets and began to burn my stomach and she said, "WHERE DID THEY GET CHOCOLATE CAKE FROM?" And I said, "They asked for it!" And the children who had been singing praises to me, LIED on me and said, "Uh-uh! We asked for eggs and milk. AND DAD MADE US EAT THIS!" And my wife sent me to my room--which is where I wanted to go in the first place.

  • ||

    Shorter Pro'L Dib: Delayed gratification is its own reward.-)

  • Pro Libertate||

    What really triggered it was going to daycares to send our daughter to at 8 weeks. It floored both of us, and she shortly thereafter started talking about staying home.

  • ||

    Whatever. Cost budget analysis, delayed gratification, what's the difference? Either way, the etiology is the same: Mrs. Pro'L Dib (may I call her Chani?), delayed no doubt a fulfilling corporate professional career littered with many social and economic rewards in favour of a litter for thier social and economic rewards.

    I marvel at thee and hope my possible future marriage is as 1/2 as successful as yours.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "my possible future marriage"

    Oh, we are counting on it Herr Doktor.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm exquisitely fortunate and infinitely thankful.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Oh it's worth it. When Social Security blows up-and it will-I actually have some productive human beings who will happily take care of me in my doddering old age.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Yeah that's the other side of this coin. The kicker (money-burner) for me is trying to eat well (good meats, fresh vegetables, little bread) which is expensive enough for one person let alone a litter of them. Eh something will have to fall by the wayside. I guess Ramen can always come back into the diet. I'll feel like I'm in college/suicidal again.

  • BuSab Agent||

    We pulled that off by gardening and chickens. Of course that option requires the correct location.

  • Enough About Palin||

    If a person is home all day with the kids, cooking from scratch is really inexpensive. I grew up poor but we ate well.

  • Zeb||

    Maybe they think of it as a return of the taxes they pay for the schools they don't use. Probably not. And that doesn't make it much better.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Does it matter? I don't know what the actual statistics are, but it's hard not to think that once you carve out the fraud and the situations like this, where public assistance is used as an alternative to work, that there are not quite so many people in need of public assistance as some would have us believe.

  • Henry II||

    Apparently the politics of resentment and jealousy runs both ways.

  • sarcasmic||

    I used to regularly drive past a low income housing building in my college days. In the dead of winter half the windows were open. You could see the heat streaming out the windows. Must be nice to have someone else pay the bills.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I did some volunteer work at Cabrini Green. The idea that poor people benefit by being placed in such conditions boggles the mind. Also, I never saw J.J. or Florida.

    One thing that's always bothered me about these public housing setups is that the government seems to treat residents as having inferior rights to others. I don't think it's racism so much as the idea that the governments owns the projects and can do whatever it wants.

  • BuSab Agent||

    It was a great day when they tore that festering shit hole down.

  • SugarFree||

    But it does ask the question: Where will the inevitable Candyman re-make be set?

  • BuSab Agent||

    Whitehouse?

  • SugarFree||

    Not enough abandoned apartments.

  • ||

    Windy Ridge?

  • $park¥||

    Nicole's apartment.

  • nicole||

    Are there subsidies involved? And if so, do I have to move to maintain purity levels?

  • $park¥||

    maintain purity levels

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    *gasp*
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    *wipes tears*

    Whew, sorry. Good one, Nicole.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Newark, NJ.

  • KDN||

    Not nearly as bad as its reputation! A better choice would be Irvington or Camden. Preferably Camden.

  • Rhywun||

    Like stop 'n' frisk.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    That's always the problem when someone else is footing the entire bill - they get to decide how the money should be spent.

    & Cabrini Green, like many others, isn't necessarily an example of bad low cost housing, but incredibly poor attempts at social engineering through planning.

    Or said another way - why do most homes people seem to buy, even very cheap ones, have a lawn? Yet projects have "common areas".

    The biggest problem here of course is that these people still believe planning can solve many social ills. & instead of getting fired, were promoted to other government positions, some through elections - such as going from community organizer to the Senate... and beyond.

  • iggy||

    Jesus Christ, Cabrini Green. That place got so violent that cops wouldn't even go there.

    My favorite Cabrini Green story: Jane Byrne was Chicago's mayor at the time. She decided to move into a Cabrini Green apartment for a few weeks in order to demonstrate her 'commitment' to making it safer. While she was there, the Chicago Police Department welded shut the rear entryway into the unit Byrne was staying in. This accidentally created a fortification that was later used by gang members during their shootouts. Subsequently, the gangs started purposefully welding shut various entry and exitways from other housing projects in order to more heavily fortify them.

    In other words, the Chicago mayor gave gangs ideas on how to more effectively fortify their territory. Hoozah for Chicago politics!

  • Pro Libertate||

    When I was there--it was some Habitat for Humanity project (didn't know they did anything but build houses before that)--we were cleaning up this old guy's place. It was horrifically dirty, and he was killing (and not cleaning up) mouses with his shoe. He was disabled, so it wasn't that he necessarily like living like that.

    Just about broke my heart, so so much for libertarians lacking empathy.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I said mouses. Friggin' brain. Change that to mice. He was killing the small rodents, not computer peripherals.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    It is neither "mouses" nor "mice" it is meeces.

    I hate those meeces to pieces!

  • ||

    Damn, beat me to it.

  • fish||

    This little anecdote made my day!

  • nicole||

    You could see the heat streaming out the windows. Must be nice to have someone else pay the bills.

    To be fair, I have lived in apartments where heat was included and I had my windows open all the time (and this in freaking Canada) because heat being included meant I couldn't control the thermostat. Not saying this is a good thing for public housing or whatever, but it doesn't necessarily mean the residents are being purposely wasteful.

  • fish||

    Crap Nicole! Women are always cold.

  • Zeb||

    I wonder if they just don't get thermostats. I lived in a place in college where I had to do that. Old steam heat and it was 90 degrees if you left the windows closed when it was on. We had no thermostat in our apartment and I couldn't get anyone to do anything about it.

  • Agammamon||

    I lived in a two person barracks - two small private bedrooms and a shared kitchenette and bathroom.

    Only one thermostat - inside the other bedroom.

    And my roomate had a tendency to go on leave and leave the heat turned up.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Those old steam heated buildings are often shitty, where the heat is basically only on or off. If the boiler is running, having the windows open or not doesn't make a difference in efficiency- the same amount of energy is being used.

  • Brett L||

    Kevin Spaulding is an MIT graduate in Boston who works long hours as an engineer, and struggles to cover his rent and student loans.

    GTFO of Boston. Make more somewhere the cost of living is lower.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    West. Virginia.

    Rent is ~$200. A smart man can live like a king in that hellscape of societal degeneration.

  • ||

    Absolutely. Get some fake-ass Byrd defense goldbricker pork job in one of those shitty towns along I-79, live like a king, and go to Morgantown to pick up white trash college girls. That sounds like a pretty nice life, now that I think about it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Also, oxycontin.

  • ||

    Your ticket to UKR is in the mail, Warty.-)

    For you, friend.

    (NSFW!!!)

  • sarcasmic||

    Boobies!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Photographer Peter Hegre shoots his wife and her sister naked

    The sisters seem quite... close.

  • Free Society||

    Arty porn. Thanks.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Seriously, why aren't you doing that?

    I thought Morgantown was nice. Stayed there on a drive back from DC once, on the 4th of July.

  • ||

    Because there are no Lubas in Morgantown.

  • Brett L||

    Drax sat upon his throne of hillbilly skulls, lamenting the close-set of the eye sockets and lack of teeth.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Your Golden Order of the Monocle is in the mail, for that.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    ...and lack of teeth.

    Also known as the Mountain Dew smile or crystal meth crease.

  • Rasilio||

    You know, I've seen several people say this and I've tried it.

    I spent most of the last 15 years in the midwest (Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville) and while I was there I could afford really nice houses in good neighborhoods on my salary (ranged between $60 and $85k per year most of that time). The problem is working in IT there was never enough work in 1 city, when one contract ended it either meant a long layoff or moving to a new city.

    On the flip side here in Boston I am paying nearly double for a crap house that is just barely big enough for my family and a 40 mile commute from the city but there is so much work I was getting 5 - 7 calls from recruiters a week BEFORE I updated my resume on the job boards, since I started it my phone pretty much hasn't stopped ringing and it is a pretty good bet that I will have a new position prior to my contract ending at the end of the month, likely with a nice 20 - 30% payraise to boot.

  • Tim||

    Landlords like section 8 because the checks come on time and always clear.

    Also non-profits are getting onto the section 8 gravy train. They get gubmint grants to build or renovate housing, then gubmint money to run it.

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno. My folks have an apartment building and they rent to these people from time to time. Yes the checks come on time, but they invite unsavory traffic, burn through heating oil like there's no tomorrow, and quite often the entire apartment needs to be remodeled when they leave. But that's better than the average deadbeat who pays one month rent and then plays squatter for three months while trashing the place. Both are going to trash the place. Might as well collect rent from the moocher.

  • BuSab Agent||

    They like it so much, that in certain areas there are virtually no apartments available that are not Section 8 making it hella hard to find an affordable place when you don't want to suck on the government teat.

  • fish||

    But who doesn't enjoy the Section 8 certification riots? I stopped watching NASCAR because these were so much fun.

    A fiery crash guaranteed everytime!

  • Agammamon||

    off-base military housing is being opened up to section 8 applicants in some areas.

    Mainly because a lot of it is being turned over to private contracted management and they want to ensure that all the units are filled all the time.

  • OldMexican||

    But because of that, Section 8 tenants often get to live in nicer places than those who pay their own way.


    And the best part is: You suckers get to subsidize their richer pads with your tax dollars while you pay for your dumps with your own money!

    Isn't socialism fairer?

  • WTF||

    Hey, wait, Obama said spreading it around was good for everyone!!!11!!!!

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I've come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that taxing one person for the specific reason to give that money to another, is a weak form of slavery (maybe like aspergers on the scale of autism, back with it was still part of the spectrum).

    Because really in the end, by taking one person's money, you are restricting their freedom, and theoretically, when giving it to another, you are increasing their freedom.

    This is nothing more than the slave/master relationship - the master simply asks that the slave give of themselves their freedoms, in order to increase the freedom of the master and their friends/family.

    I know... "extreme"

  • sarcasmic||

    You suckers get to subsidize their richer pads with your tax dollars while you pay for your dumps with your own money!

    As your income increases so will your standard of living! Theirs will not!
    How fair is that? You are fortunate enough to have an increasing income while they are stuck in the same rut for life! Eventually you may even get rich, while they will not! How fair is that? You getting rich on the backs of people living in Section 8? Obviously you haven't paid your fair share and need your taxes to be raised!

  • ||

    It's hard for me to be getting rich on their backs if they aren't working.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't understand! By not paying your fair share you are actually stealing from those who would have received what would have been taken from you! See? If you get rich by keeping what you've earned, you're depriving those who don't work of what could have been taken from you and given to them! So you're getting rich on the backs of the poor!

  • BuSab Agent||

    My brain hurts now.

  • Agammamon||

    And if you do get richer, its not fair so we'll raise your taxes to compensate.

  • sarcasmic||

    Someone gets it.

  • Lord Humungus||

    OT: Executive Orders - is there anything they can't do?

    Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."


    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....94984.html

    provided those lives aren't Pakistani children.

  • Bam!||

    And then someone will use the second amendment to deal with the executive in charge.

  • fish||

    Shut up.....Mary.

  • Jordan||

    if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking

    Anybody who believes this is a fucking piece of shit. We should repeal the 4th and 5th Amendments, since they make it easier for criminals to avoid being caught and punished. Take your police state and shove it up your ass, Biden.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Yeah by that logic, we might as well kill everyone with a mental problem... which according to psychiatrists is EVERYBODY.

    Maybe that's what those FEMA coffins are for.

    God...my pot-induced paranoia is flooding back like so much diarrhea in a German sex film.

  • Coeus||

    Anybody who believes this is a fucking piece of shit.

    It explains some of the more objectionable parts of VAWA, though. He probably actually believes it.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed - when someone says that, simply ask a hypothetical - what if it cost 1 trillion to save just one life? Should we spend it?

    3 trillion?

    To save a young Jeffery Dalhmer?

    No?

    Then I guess cost/benefit analysis exists whether we like it or not.

    Even when we're incredibly stupid and purposefully lie to ourselves in a childish, idiotic, & vain attempt to prove our "better natures" exist.

    Of course all that is proven is that no one really believes this and those pretending otherwise are part of the problem.

    & Those hearing it and believing it are the problem.

  • BuSab Agent||

    To stop an incredibly rare event he's willing to sacrifice the thousands of women who will be raped, old ladies who will be mugged, stores that will be held-up at gunpoint, and homes that will be invaded by ordinary everyday criminals who will have free reign when the best tool for self-defense is removed.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILLLRRRUUUNSSNSNSZSZSZSAZ!!

  • BuSab Agent||

    No it's not. If it was actually fer the chillins, he would be working for teachers (voluntarily mind you 'cause the ones that piss themselves at the thought of a gun would be useless) to get CCWs so that EVERY school had at least the possibility of an armed presence with skin in the game.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Eric Holder was scheduled to be at the meeting that's currently taking place at the White House.

    Oh yeah, he's all about not letting guns into the hands of dangerous people.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Well, dangerous American people, anyway.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Oh come now. I'm sure some of the guns have made their way back north to dangerous Americans by now. It's not like firearms have a short shelf life.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    But Holder wouldn't want us to have any. He wanted to make his point on a pile of Mexican corpses.

  • db||

    Can anyone think of a quicker way to start a Constitutional crisis?

  • Agammamon||

    Wait, what if in saving that one life you set up the conditions for the murder of ten and the rape of five others?

    Hey, that moral calculus stuff can be really complicated Joe.

  • Matrix||

    Section 8 housing also brings down property values for those around them. I have lived around that shit, and you always knew where to look when someone's house was broken into or someone's bike or other things were stolen.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I've learned my lesson - don't ever buy a house near a rental. Especially if that rental is near a college.

  • MacKlingon||

    "It was a reasonable idea. But, as always, there were unintended consequences."

    It got Yo-mama re-elected didn't.

  • MacKlingon||

    it.

  • ||

    eat.

  • ||

    The single most important thing HUD does is provide rental assistance to America’s most vulnerable families—and the Obama administration is proposing bold steps to meet their needs.

    Yeah, how do you help make renting more affordable by subsidizing rentals? Subsidization decreases the recipients actual costs to rent and increases the demand for rentals. Without increase in supply, prices go up. Rental prices go up, and the value of housing goes up (provided the renters don't ruin it through their own behavior in their own neighborhood).

    If prices go up, the benefit of the subsidy to the recipients goes down, resulting in calls for even more assistance. Prince increases also create an incentive to supply rentals and property, people build more houses... this is all sounding shockingly familiar.

    So glad the government is here to help.

  • ||

    As a college student, this cycle sounds suspiciously familiar....

  • Henry II||

    Go back to Econ 101. If the subsidy raises prices, then it encourages more suppliers to enter into the market and also encourages some renters (those that can afford it) to buy. As the stock of rentals increases, there is downward pressure on rents. The reverse of this happened in the housing burst.

    For someone reading Reason, you are pretty ignorant of basic economics.

  • Brandybuck||

    I once saw section 8 destroy an apartment complex I lived in. Landlords are initially attracted to the program because it means guaranteed rent payments. They will actively pursue section 8 renters. But they quickly realize their mistake, because you can't evict those tenants. It doesn't take a deep understanding of social incentives to predict the end results.

    The complex I lived in was low rent, but decent. It was occupied by the working poor (me at the time) and a few students. But a new landlord decided to allow section 8 renters, and within two years the place became known as "Sin City" (and not in the positive Las Vegas sense of the term). Crime was frequent, cockroaches and other vectors became a problem, and the place started deteriorating. The old apartment managers left in disgust and the new ones just didn't care.

  • Coeus||

    I have had a similar experience, but the new managers phased out the section 8. Difference has been like night and day. Haven't heard a gunshot in months.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Landlords are initially attracted to the program because it means guaranteed rent payments. They will actively pursue section 8 renters. But they quickly realize their mistake, because you can't evict those tenants. It doesn't take a deep understanding of social incentives to predict the end results.

    Not to mention that there is a reason quite a few of them are Section 8 tenants to begin with. It's like inviting a strange dog inside and being shocked when he craps on your rug.

  • ||

    $2,200/month is more than my rent on a 2-bedroom duplex in expensive northern virginia.

    Where do I go to sign up for these subsidies?

    Oh, wait, I have to quit my job?

  • BuSab Agent||

    Maybe not. You just have a job that pays you off the books, my bitch MIL ran this scam for years(and she got pissy when I called her a thief for doing it...not our first fight as you might have guessed).

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Good point - does subsidizing low skilled increase black market transactions?

    I would think yes - whether the drug trade or just off-the-books work, if you do not have the skill set/experience to make enough money to live decently, and making even a little (high poverty) would risk the subsidy...

    Is there a study?

  • Rasilio||

    Not certain but I'm pretty sure that number is based on family size which would mean that to get the $2200 a month and you probably wouldn't legally be allowed to rent a 2 BR because you'd have more than 2 people per bedroom.

    According to the Fair Housing act it would be illegal to rent anything less than a 3 bedroom to someone with 6 kids and in general it would require a 4 BR or 3 BR with a minimum of around 1000 SQ feet

  • Coeus||

    According to the Fair Housing act it would be illegal to rent anything less than a 3 bedroom to someone with 6 kids and in general it would require a 4 BR or 3 BR with a minimum of around 1000 SQ feet

    You just gave any Chinese reading this a fucking heart attack.

  • BuSab Agent||

    My grandparents as well. They managed to raise 11 kids in a 3 BR: boys' room, girls' room, parents' room; what more do you need?

  • Alice Bowie||

    In NYC, Section 8 is not the walk-in-the-park Stossell makes it out to be.

    You have to live in a shelter for months and it takes years to get.

    My friend applied for section 8 almost 12 years ago, she just got it and didn't even need it now.

  • Sevo||

    "You have to live in a shelter for months and it takes years to get."

    Wouldn't have to do with a lot of free-loaders, would it Alice?

  • XM||

    Isn't section 8 also a term for mental disorder discharge? Klinger was always after that in MASH.

  • Libertarius||

    Yes it is.

  • waaminn||

    Sometimes man you jsut gotta smack dat ass!

    www.BigAnon.tk

  • Sevo||

    “On paper, Section 8 seems like it should be successful,”

    Great. One more paving stone.

  • Henry II||

    This is a silly article and I expect better from Stossel. The fed govt spends vastly more on tax breaks for mortgage interest than it does on the Section 8 programs; and more than that buying up mortgages (yep, Fannie and Freddie are even MORE active now and are not unquestionably government owned).

    If we want to cut housing subsidy, any libertarian would agree that it should probably be cut on millionaire's mortgage interest deductions first. This is true of any inefficiency in government (and there are many).

    It should also be noted that Section 8 are SUPPLEMENTS, they do NOT cover all of the rent. Section 8 recipients must prove that they have means to pay the balance of the rent. Most recipients are working poor in expensive areas - they have jobs, but cannot afford the local market rent.

    There ARE perverse incentives, but these can be dealt with (for example, only losing a small % of the Section 8 subsidy as income increases). Means testing is critical for Section 8, and that ALWAYS results in disincentives to work as in all other social welfare programs (including Medicare/aid and Social Security).

    What is most perverse is that Stossel does not criticize the fact that a millionaire will receive vastly MORE housing subsidies from interest deductions on their million-dollar primary and secondary homes - WITH NO MEANS TESTING. That means the rich are encouraged to buy more expensice homes and use more debt - all subsidized by the fed govt.

  • Sevo||

    Couldn't agree more. Maybe you should right an article on that subject.
    Stossel wrote on another, in case it's not obvious.

  • Sevo||

    Henry II| 1.10.13 @ 2:21PM |#
    "This is a silly article and I expect better from Stossel. The fed govt spends vastly more on tax breaks for mortgage interest than it does on the Section 8 programs..."

    I take my earlier comment back.
    No, Henry, tax exemptions are NOT the same as subsidies.
    Stuff it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " If Section 8 recipients accumulate money or start to make more, they lose their subsidy."

    This is the worst part of it. As is so often the case, people on public assistance face horrible disincentives against work, often greater than 100% effective marginal tax rates.

    If you remake the universe so that people are made worse off by working, they won't work.

  • Coach Panto||

    In Santa Monica there is a luxury apartment complex where tenants pay $3000/mo rent. There are several section 8 tenants living there who I heard are only paying 200-400$ of their own money. These apartments have large bedrooms, state-of-the-art kitchen appliances, vaulted ceilings, high-quality tile, and extra-large bathtubs.

    We are not subsizing only "shelter", we're subsizing a motherfackin luxury lifestyle for these lazy shitbags! When I was there I was half-tempted to go on a raid and destroy mission just to drive the section 8'ers out. But then the cost to fix it would be borne by the owner. This fackin redistribution thing has gotten way outta fackin whack. IF it doesnt start reversing, alotta people are gonna end up dead.

  • ||

    There is no greater fear than losing a steady handout and then being forced to work for a buck. Self-esteem or annoying alarm clocks are not needed for those that choose to suck on the big nipple. More than one hundred million recipients depend on Obama for their survival; he is the great provider and jungle king.

  • swithcmal||

    Kevin Spaulding is an MIT graduate in Boston who works long hours as an engineer, and struggles Designer Wedding Dress to cover his rent and student loans. Yet all around him, he says, he sees people who don’t work but live better than he does.

    Clearly Kevin Spaulding is a Affordable Wedding Dress "classist" or perhaps worse a racist! Kevin Spaulding should probably just not notice these things.

  • swithcmal||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement