DISQUS

coyotesaz · 2 weeks ago

"In order to qualify for either credit, the purchase contracts need to be signed by April 30, 2010 and the closing must take place by June 30, 2010". Is there any limit for starting point here?

FFB · 2 weeks ago

On the one hand it makes me want to push up our home buying to see if we can get in on it. On the hand hand I wouldn't mind if home prices stayed low. The credit will help keep demand up for buying which will keep prices up. I could be better off with lower home prices than a $6500 credit (we've owned in the last 5 years).

smithee · 2 weeks ago

Is the money coming from the funds set aside in the original stimulus bill, or somewhere else?

JT_4 · 2 weeks ago

This stimulates nothing in the long run. All this, along with any other "stimulus", does is pull demand forward at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars to the taxpayer for each home.

People in the market for a home are better off waiting (yet again) until this credit expires. We're nowhere near out of this housing mess. Commercial real estate has been following suit and poses a far larger problem than residential.

Wait until there is blood in the streets and then buy.

Stevedh · 2 weeks ago

As long as we're not, once again, providing a means for people to bury themselves in debt they cannot afford the program has some merit. However we need to remember the Inspector General who oversees this program found "questionable" activities by the administrators. Not only providing these funds to 350 who were under 18 years-old, including one who was five but other more "institutionalized anomalies". The realtors have a vested interest indeed, as do the surviving, but nearly broke banks and mortgage companies. Who really benefits?

JT_4 · 2 weeks ago

How does the program have any merit? It's a wasteful program that steals from taxpayers, lines the pockets of the politicians and give billions of dollars to the people that created this mess!

The best way to make housing affordable is to stop propping up prices. Everyone always thinks about the homeowner who wants to sell and what he stands to lose; but what about the person who's looking to buy and what he stands to gain from the lowered prices?

Dan · 2 weeks ago

We should toss the program. $8k doesn't do much in the major metro areas that I have lived other drain tax payer resources.

pharmboy · 2 weeks ago

This coming spring, my wife and I are choosing to relocate from the rural South to a more urban locale in the Midwest, and our housing cost will likely triple. Why aren't we allowed to capitalize on this extension? Because we've only lived in this house for two and a half years. Which seems pretty damn arbitrary to me, but so is almost all of our government's policies.

Gary Del · 2 weeks ago

The economy is not improving. What delusional state are you in to ask this question. Six million unemployed = Depression! Nationally, employers have dumped over 260,000 jobs, meaning that these are jobs that no longer exist. They are never coming back. Stop believe the BS.

7,000 people a day have been losing extended unemployment benefits. Over 200,000 already have lost benefits.

THE LIST of the irresponsible republicans that held H.R.3548 - Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009 up for a month are: These politicians do not serve the people and do not deserve their job. Vote them out of office and a job.

Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY]
Sen. Christopher Bond [R, MO]
Sen. Jim Bunning [R, KY]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC]
Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY]
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]
Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL]
Sen. David Vitter [R, LA]
Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]

The economy has a long long way to go. The media/reporting is irresponsible saying otherwise.

JT_4 · 2 weeks ago

You're absolutely dead on about the economy Gary. However, it's not just the Republicans who have been irresponsible. It's been all of them; Dems and Reps.

smithee · 2 weeks ago

I agree that high unemployment is terrible, and I'd love to see businesses hiring again, too.

But you can't call the media irresponsible for reporting improvement in the economy. "Recession" has a very specific economic meaning, and when the GDP grew by 3.5%, that meant the recession was over.

JT_4 · 2 weeks ago

The media isn't just "reporting" that the economy is improving. They are doing everything in their power to make things look as rosy as possible. When things were seriously tanking a few months back they didn't look at the indicators objectively. Instead they kept saying that things aren't that bad and started cherry picking as many numbers as possible.

It's not irresponsible to report the facts, but it is irresponsible to not vet these so-called "facts" first. And while recession does have a very specific meaning, where are all the reporters digging into that headline number? How come we don't hear them reporting about imputations, hedonics, etc. to give some perspective on that pie in the sky number?

pharmboy · 2 weeks ago

This coming spring, my wife and I are choosing to relocate from the rural South to a more urban locale in the Midwest, and our housing cost will likely triple. Why aren't we allowed to capitalize on this extension? Because we've only lived in this house for two and a half years. Which seems pretty damn arbitrary to me, but so is almost all of our government's policies.

craig · 2 weeks ago

It's hard to say cause just like the cash for clunkers, it seems most people taking advantage would buy regardless so in that case it looks like a failure.