Posted on 07/09/2026 5:23:17 AM PDT by TTFX
Apart from eliminating some burdensome federal regulations previously enacted by these morons (repealing almost anything passed by any Congress ever, for any reason, is a good idea) the main outcome of the law will be to destroy neighborhoods, while unjustly enriching well-heeled landlords of decrepit apartment buildings.
Specifically, the act expands Section 8 housing, a government program to move violent, gun-happy, drug-dealing welfare recipients from inner-city public housing units into previously safe neighborhoods. The theory is that if only criminals lived in nice middle-class areas, they’d get jobs and become productive members of society!
Prevented by their own ideology from criticizing welfare dependency, single motherhood, drug use or criminality, liberals blame dysfunctional behavior on… zip codes. Instead of addressing why people might not want to live in places where they get mugged, Congress decided to move the bad neighborhoods to them. Work ethic, orderliness, respect for the law — irrelevant! It’s location, location, location.
(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Anything that expands section 8 should be a complete non-starter. Literally section 8 is being used to destroy middle America via the outgrowth of a lazy, criminal culture of entitled parasites.
I remember a National Review article. A writer named Williamson suggesting getting rid of HUD but keeping Section 8. Ms. Coulter speaks the truth but landlords love it, especially the small ones. The government pays the rent so it’s guaranteed.
Williamson also wrote a book on the debt bomb with “it’s gonna be awesome” in the title, one of my favorite lines here.
There’s more:
**Ferguson, Mo., is an illustration of what happens when Section 8 housing comes to your town. People fleeing crime in St. Louis, residents of inner-city projects began being funneled into “Housing Choice” apartments there.
The town’s most famous resident, Michael Brown, lived in Section 8 housing**
Creating more free range criminals. New pastures, new targets.
“The theory is that if only criminals lived in nice middle-class areas...”
Don’t see it that way, it is just another tool for the criminals in the House and Senate to enrich themselves and pile on the national debt.
Poverty doesn’t create crime but crime will assuredly create impoverished neighborhoods.
The crazy squirrel found a nut.
I forget... is Ann Good or Bad this week?
Agreed. And I hear that the government repairs the rental house damaged by the "renter". If the owner rents to a non Section 8 renter there's risk of the renter not paying rent and also not paying damages to the house. So Section 8 housing motivates the house owner to use the government instead of the free market.
Making housing prices go up, both for rental houses and purchase houses. If I'm a small real estate investor and I'm considering selling houses, I might decide instead to rent them for guaranteed Section 8 income. That removes starter homes from the market supply of buyers, which raises the price of starter homes. As well as increasing crime in the area (as Ann Coulter points out), which removes other starter homes in the area from the market, further raising the price of nearby starter homes a couple of miles away (outside the crime area).
Most of the premises used to justify many parts of the bill are false.
And number one reason: Does anything think greater federal insertion into the housing markets will really solve anything?
Every bit of the bill is no-nothing populism, trying to give voters concerned about the cost of housing something, anything, to make believe the Washington D.C. politicians are “doing something about it”.
Most all the reasons housing prices and rents are high are LOCAL and due to state and local policies and conditions.
As Rush used to say... “Bringing the “hood to you! “
Nightmare on Your Street:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6644/text?s=1&r=1&hl=H.R.6644
THOSE RECIPIENTS CONTAMINATE THEIR SURROUNDING AREAS, IMO.
Another Nixon disaster.
The number of problems created by the LBJ-NIXON administrations and congress ranges from immigration to Sec 8 to socialized medicine for 40% of us to education and borrowing money from the national debt for local programs whose only raison d’etre is to get matching money from Washinton.
She got it right this time.
https://www.crystal-lagoons.com/gallery/
Maybe one’s dear lady can have her beach house after all.
No sharks, no jellyfish, no red tide!
No storm surge!
No flood insurance!
“Another Nixon disaster”
Circa 1970, paying to rent private housing appeared to be much cheaper than building new public housing.
“liberals blame dysfunctional behavior on”
Blame dysfunctional behavior on liberals.
What the well-to-do might do is to build in rural areas on clay soil that ‘perks’ poorly.
The rural area means sewer lines are economically impractical and the clay soil means leach fields have to be huge and very expensive.
If housing for the professional class becomes too rare or not physically or economically safe, then the whole area might fail.
Employers might bring in H-1Bs, but it would cost India nothing to let its H-1Bs return home and pay no income tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.