This is completely false. The federal stimulus packages had billions in subsidies to landlords. That's in addition to the indirect support that the govtlernment has provides (such as the stimulus checks). Also most states have additional money for landlords.

There was all kinds of federal stimulus money given to businesses/property owners. It was just gobbled up by those who knew how to work the system (read: large property owners).

So... not "0%" as claimed in the comment I replied to.

Yes, I was in agreement with you and expanding upon what you said. The OP might have received nothing, but that's not because nothing was available, just that property is a dog-eat-dog world and OP was dog chow this time around.

I didn't receive anything because I wasn't in a position to (don't own rental property, and don't qualify for income-based assistance even if it existed for this purpose).

But my less affluent neighbors also didn't receive anything in direct support of rent payments, despite their jobs disappearing.

This is not the same as subsidizing rent so as to avert piling debt upon struggling renters whose jobs were suddenly and forcefully cancelled, some for months on end.

Yep. The moratorium only made it that you can't evict someone. It didn't make it that your tenants didn't have to pay. However, many tenants (for a variety of reasons that may not be their fault) chose to use the money elsewhere. So now the moratorium is ending and the thousands of dollars of missed rent payments are catching up.

Some states had programs that would provide some money to renters to help them with that, but it wasn't enough for a lot of people.

Nearly every state has a program to provide some rental payments back to the landlord.

It's going to be less and more delayed than rent payments, but that's expected during a crisis.

Renting isn't, and shouldn't be risk free.

> Renting isn't, and shouldn't be risk free.

That goes both ways, as a renter you risk getting kicked out, while as the landlord you risk not getting paid. Landlords typically evict and get someone who will pay but they were unable to. While there were programs for landlords, it was hard to get money out of them for various reasons.

If free high-quality public housing is available as an alternative to renting, then fine. Otherwise, why should renting not be essentially-risk-free? People don't rent as some sort of risky adventure, they need a place to live.

I mean, medicine is socialized (*) so that living will be "risk-free" health-wise, so why not housing?

(*) - Yes, I know that doesn't hold in the US...

> That goes both ways

Did I imply it doesn't? Evictions are no longer banned at a national scale. So, uh, yeah? We already know it goes both ways. In this special circumstance, the government essentially came in and said "We're not going to allow you to do that type of business for a bit for the sake of society."

Landlords by definition exist because the state allows them to exist. If the state wasn't there, landlords would probably be at the mercy of the 90% - and things would get ugly. So, to keep enjoying those protections that the government is giving, you need to follow circumstantial business changes. Such as a pandemic.