var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
October 16, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Expanding it to everybody? That would certainly be one way to get home values to rise by, say, $8k overnight. Thanks, taxpayers.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
theyoungandthebetrayed
October 16, 2009 7:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2: I've been searching for a house for a year. Home prices already jumped $20k overnight with the first 8k credit. Plus, now bidding wars are back with the highest offer at least $20k over asking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
October 16, 2009 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theyoungandthebetrayed: Really? Wow. If you don't mind my asking, where do you live? I was sure that bidding wars would be a thing of the past in most of the country for another two years or so. I mean, I knew that values in the DC area are creeping back up, but $20-40k nearly overnight? Recession, what recession?


Good luck on the search - it took us three years, but we ended up in a place we like with a neighborhood we love at a price that we can afford. Not rushing got us an extra 1800 sq.ft for -$60k.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theyoungandthebetrayed
October 20, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2: I live in Fresno, CA. Much of the increase is because prices fell especially hard (top ten in foreclosures, 15% unemployment, etc...). The neighborhoods we were looking at were $200-250k two or three years ago, $60-80k at its worst last winter, and are now going for $100-120k. Now I'm just biding my time, waiting to see what happens after the credit expires.


Some of the houses we've seen even our agent laughs at the final offer, saying \"good luck getting it appraised for that!\"


What's really frustrating is the drastic decrease in available inventory. Most affordable houses are tied up in 60-90 day escrows (but still listed on the MLS by their agents, mocking me), of which many will eventually fall through.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
October 16, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2:

The credit only applies to first time homebuyers, not everyone. Suppliers have in my opinion only marginal incentive to raise prices.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
October 16, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse: And not even all first time homebuyers. My husband is buying his first home with me, who is a previous home owner. We don't qualify. Even if we filed separately we wouldn't.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
October 16, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: It may be worth waiting this bill out. If Isakson and Dodd get their way, you could see that $8k. The taxpayer in me would rather you didn't, but the consumer advocate side says good luck (the two sides will be dueling at dawn).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
October 16, 2009 6:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2: We close on the 28th. So it's unlikely.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
October 16, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse: Yeah, I know that. It's the possible expansion that I am taking issue with (of course, subsidizing first time buyers is hitting taxpayers as well...)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cabjf
October 16, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If they expand it, it had better be retro-active for the program. I bought a house earlier this year. It was the first home in my name. However, since I was married and my wife owned our previous home, I did not count towards the first time homebuyers credit. If they expand it now where I would qualify but it's too late because I already purchased...

Thanks, Uncle Sam, for giving my tax money away to other people buying their first homes while I work hard to pay for my own.

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
ninjatoddler
October 17, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf: If you're filing taxes separately, you should be good.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ninjatoddler
October 17, 2009 2:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ninjatoddler: My bad. Sucks to be married to a wife who already owns a home, esp when the purchase was made less than 3 years ago during the bubble.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
October 16, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf: I bought my house a mere 5 months before they started this program. I got a nifty \"loan\" but I have to pay it back.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pot_roast
October 19, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CFinWV: Same here. $500/year, and our tax people have been saying that we need to increase our withholding amount because the tax tables are a royal mess this year. Great.@Shappie:


Agreed. The government could very easily change those terms. They've thrown away billions on far less useful programs anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
October 16, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CFinWV: Same here, although the major driver was lower home prices (my home was down 25% from its earlier asking price, I got it for the same price the previous owner paid in '03).

If they extend it further they need to forgive our loans, but even better would be to convert all the new ones to loans (I know, undue and unexpected hardship, but stop giving away tax money!)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Elcheecho
October 16, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf: i rent. my taxes pay for your interest write-offs. your welcome.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SkokieGuy
October 16, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf: You could have bought the house in your name only and qualified. You chose to buy it in both your names.


You knew the rules and made a choice. No whining please.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cabjf
October 16, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: Nope, it's only in my name. There is a catch in the way the government defines a first time homebuyer. If your spouse has owned a home in the last 3 years, you don't count.

Married couples get tax benefits? Then what was that so-called marriage tax that Bush tried to get rid of? The entire tax system is set up against married couples from the start. Married couples are the IRS's bread and butter after all. If my wife and I were simply cohabiting without the marriage license (as many people now do), I could have taken advantage of the program.

I'm whining because it was a poorly conceived program to begin with. Much like Cash for Clunkers, which barely affected overall fuel economy, and now that it's over, everyone's sales are back in the gutter. Now we have home builders and realtors arguing that they need more taxpayer-funded incentives to keep their business up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
October 16, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf: You raise an important point, I do believe the government has, for the better part of the past year, held up the economy through its billions of dollars in incentives and summarily sent the national debt through the roof.

But it can't keep going forever, the government cannot keep throwing money at the problem and hope it goes away. Cash for clunkers was great...while it lasted. We don't need short term fixes we need long term solutions.

Eventually the economy will have to reach a point where it can stand on its own without these \"incentives\" and \"bonus programs\" because from where I sit, the government isn't fixing the economy so much as delaying the inevitable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 16, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: You are partially correct. The idea behind these incentives is to get us to the point where they are no longer needed as painlessly as possible for Americans. We could potentially recover without them, but the odds of most Americans suffering much longer and much harder if we didn't utilize them is a subject that no econ experts are disputing regardless of where their opinions stand.

At this point, the experts in the field of economics are not being controversial over whether or not these incentives have slowed down the negative impact of the economic slump. They all agree that they have successfully slowed down or possibly even halted the free fall. Where some of them disagree is whether or not what we have done so far has been enough and how to make sure that we result in recovery as soon as possible.

I believe that what we have done is not enough quite yet and we need to do more work, but that doesn't mean that I think the answer lies solely amongst stimulus incentives. I think those have their purpose and they are necessary, but we need to do a lot more to create jobs effectively.

Obama has already stated that once Healthcare is done he is intending to focus on job creation very heavily next. Let's hope that what he and Congress come up with is successful.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cabjf
October 16, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: Exactly, much of the bailout money should have been spent (if spent at all) on transforming the economy instead of propping it up. For example, instead of pouring money into failing banks, why couldn't the government have put that money into some sort of government backed lending pool funneled through whatever banks and credit unions were still function? Now we have companies that were run into the ground through high risk schemes that are still around to repeat their mistakes.

I'm just extra bitter about the homebuyers tax credit because, even though I thought it was a bad idea for a bill, I might as well take advantage of it while they're handing out money. Plus, it looked like we might qualify. Then the final version of the bill came out. And being disqualified due to a technicality is the worst way to be disqualified. Just ask that runner who was listening to her iPod and disqualified for using an electronic device. [gizmodo.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
October 16, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf: Condemning it unless there's something in it for you then, in which case you're all for it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
October 16, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf:

I see your point, but married couples also get plenty of other tax benefits.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Unsolicited Advice
October 16, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For the love of the dollar, put a stop to this nonsense.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
t-r0y
October 16, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Unsolicited Advice: +11,912,755,000,000 -- U.S. National Debt as of 2009-10-16 14:37EDT (usdebtclock.org)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
October 16, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The media and especially Realtors saying that the First Time Homebuyers Credit is a $8,000 credit is about as obnoxious as everyone calling the 2009 H1N1 vaccine \"swine flu.\"

The fact of the matter is that the credit is 10% of the home price up to $8,000.

[www.irs.gov]

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
October 16, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse: Correct but in how much of the country can you get a house for less than $80k? That won't pay for a mobile home here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SonicPhoenix
October 16, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq:
I just bought one for $70k. Granted if I travel about a mile in any direction I can hear the banjo music...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
avantartist
October 16, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As someone that would like to purchase a home. I really hope it gets extended. Maybe for once I'd really feel like I was getting something for my taxes.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
October 16, 2009 7:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@avantartist: Yeah, because you've never once been on a public roadway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kujospam
October 18, 2009 3:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301:

In Ohio your income taxes are not used for roads. Sigh. Go Gas tax. Atleast we have descent roads, but they are always under construction. Can't have it both ways I guess.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pb5000
October 16, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they could take that $7,500 one from last year and make the payback part go away? I closed on 12-31, missing the $8000 by ONE day.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
JediJohn82
October 16, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pb5000:

I whole-heartedly agree with this suggestion!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
October 16, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pb5000: Forgiving existing debts doesn't spur new sales.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jester6641
October 16, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: But forgiving existing debts could spur new spending...

Bought my first 11/25/08.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
holocron
October 16, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If they would allow home prices to adjust to their real values, rather than the over-inflated prices still in place, then they wouldn't need a $8,000 tax credit.

But hey, go ahead an extend it. Then next year when home prices finally implode from their unsustainable levels, I'll finally buy.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
kujospam
October 18, 2009 3:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@holocron:

I agree, I would love the housing market to crash another 30 to 50%. The true worth of houses today. Then I would be able to afford one on my 50k salary. It's sad when I pay 800 in rent a month for the last 3 years and I can't buy a house even though the mortgage plus taxes right now are 700 a month.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jscott73
October 16, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@holocron: +10 internets to you good sir, that is my plan as well

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Shappie
October 16, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm still crossing my fingers that the first incarnation of the First Time Home Buyers Credit, the $7,500 in 2008, will make it the same as the current one.


Anyone that got the $7,500 in the last half of 2008 has to pay it back. The 2009, $8,000 credit does not. That really grinds my gears.


I would have waited the extra month had they announced the updated terms and whatnot.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
JediJohn82
October 16, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shappie:

Yes, please make this change...I would be forever grateful.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Josh_G
October 16, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm building a home and qualify since it's my first home, but regardless this tax credit is almost worthless and considering normal tax forms and my income level more trouble than it is worth.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
October 16, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Josh_G:

Remember, this is a credit, not a deduction. Credits reduce your tax liability dollar for dollar; deductions reduce your income which your tax liability is based on.

The homebuyer credit is even refundable, which means that if you have a zero tax liability, you will still get the full amount of the credit if you qualify.

And with tax software nowadays, claiming the credit shouldn't be rocket science.

Also, contrary to what you may or may not have heard, you do not need to amend your 2008 return for 2009 purchases. If you qualify for 2008, just push the credit through on your 09 return. It's nearly the end of the year anyways.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
qwickone
October 16, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse: No, you should refile your 2008 taxes, IMO. Then you get interest at a rate of 15% for all of 2009. I did the form by hand, it was very easy. Also, if you're income level is above $150K for a married couple, you're getting less than $8K, fyi. I think it totally goes away at around $175. But if your income is less than that, why would a 2 page form (that took me less than 15 min and I'm not an accountant) not be worth $8K to you?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
October 16, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse:

I meant qualify for the credit because of an 09 purchase.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rachaeljean
October 16, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I really hope they do this. We're building our first home right now (Rural home loan ftw!) and aren't going to close until February.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
EBounding
October 16, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If $8,000 is going to influence your decision to buy a house, you shouldn't be buying one.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
legwork
October 16, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EBounding:
What are those words? \"should\", \"shouldn't\"? I'm afraid you lost me there.

Seriously though... This is nothing but life support. The economy is on a pacemaker, ventilator, and dialysis, all powered by a 9v battery. House sales prop up a huge number of jobs in RE, home construction, retail, and helps drop inventory so more houses can come out of the shadow inventory and play. No doubt this credit carries a danger of encouraging some to overextend themselves, but in this environment the numbers should be small damage vs. the alternative of a horrid spiral.

Disclaimer: I'm selling and can tell you this is absolutely causing a black-friday hysteria at real estate offices. Well, more last month than this since the closing deadline is almost here, but it's definitely motivating people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jscott73
October 16, 2009 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@legwork: The $8k got my attention at first but what I really noticed was the $10-20k price reductions happening on several homes everyday. I'd rather forgo the $8k and wait awhile for the $10k-at-a-time price drops to make it worthwhile to buy. Homes keep getting cheaper and there are no fundamentals that justify price increases any time soon.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
October 16, 2009 6:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EBounding: $8000 can pay for a lot of repairs and may influence a buyer to purchase a home needing a little more work. It may also drop a $310,000 house into a price range someone can afford. Also, if you take that $8000 and apply it towards principal on your mortgage (assuming $300k mortgage at 5.5% APR) it could take 21 months off your loan. Combine that with an extra payment per year and you can take 72 months off your loan.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 16, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EBounding: What you say about rewarding people who were going to buy anyways is not accurate in all cases. There are tons of cases, like me, where people wanted to buy a house, were very much capable of affording a monthly payment on a house, but just didn't have enough cash sitting around to seal the deal between the expenses of closing costs, down payments, initial insurance policy costs, and the initial taxes. All of which need to be paid upfront and you need to prove you have all of that cash around before you will be given a loan.

That has changed thanks to this $8k credit. Banks started allowing these kinds of people that I speak of to apply that 8k towards down payments and closing costs even though the actual credit has not be received yet since it is a guarantee that they will be getting regardless.

The result for me, as I am sure it was for many people, was that I was able to get my house sooner than later which is precisely what we need right now. We need more people spending now rather than later.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
October 16, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EBounding: Why do you say that? $8K is $8K, regardless of whether it's a drop in the bucket or a substantial amount to you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EBounding
October 16, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h3llc4t has a slow work day: Oh I know $8K is a lot of money and I know homebuyers like it. But it's inconsequential when you're loading up on thousands upon thousands of dollars of debt to get the house. If you have $40K to put down for a $200K house, is an extra $8K really going to be the deciding factor?

The people buying houses today would be buying them regardless of the credit:

[www.msnbc.msn.com] [3rd paragraph]

To me, this $8K is just rewarding people who were going to buy a house soon anyway. What's actually spurring house buying today is LOWER PRICES. But policy like this just keeps the housing bubble inflated.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
samurailynn
October 16, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EBounding: I don't like the $8k credit, but I do think it influences people. I know several people who would have waited a couple more years before buying a house (recently married, unsure of what neighborhood they wanted to live in, unsure of how many kids they plan to have...) but are going ahead and trying to close before November 30 in order to get the credit.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
SkokieGuy
October 16, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why not let it expire? If it continues, it reduces the sense of urgency, because there's no deadline to close by.


Why not a new incentive? The government pays points on any home purchase for homeowners with an income up to a certain amount.


This would be a bigger long-term benefit since it would apply to lots more homebuyers. Since the buy down of points would be a lifetime benefit (lower interest rate and lower payments) it would likely have a bigger impact in reducing foreclosures than a one time $8K gift that will be quickly spent.


2 points on a $200K home is only $4K, have of the current benefit, yet 2 points would significantly reduce an interest rate and make a lot more homes a lot more affordable.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
qwickone
October 16, 2009 7:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: That's the first really good idea I've heard.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
October 16, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what I've seen, this $8000 credit simply encourages people who shouldn't be buying a home to try to do so in order to get a free $8000.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 16, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Those people who \"shouldn't be buying a home\" will not be able to do so regardless of this credit. The banks are still being very conservative with lending and they will not let those kinds of people get a loan. If you don't have the income, the credit history, or the liquid cash in the bank(beyond what the 8k covers) then it's no mortgage loan for you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ganzhimself
October 16, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That would be awesome... We FINALLY found a house we like enough to buy, but I'm not sure we'll be able to close by Nov 30 to qualify for the bonus. We're hoping to, but I also don't want to rush into it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
October 16, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm kind of hoping they are not so keen to do this, or at least wait until after the beginning of November to extend it. My parents finally sold their house in Phoenix after 3 months, and it goes into closing at the end of November. The buyers are folks who wanted to get a house ASAP because the tax credit was expiring, and if it is extended, they could screw my parents by deciding to walk away and look for another house instead because they'll have more time.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
kujospam
October 18, 2009 3:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theblackdog_Oktoberfest: Those types of people will lose their deposit though. A free 1000+ dollars. whoopie.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
October 20, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kujospam: Not in Arizona...buyers can pretty much walk away at any time and their only loss is the cost of a home inspection if they had one done.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jscott73
October 16, 2009 8:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theblackdog_ReviewingCode: That's a great point, how many people will walk away from homes in escrow because of that. If I was in the buyers position I most likely would. A cheaper home in 6 months AND the $8k sounds like a no brainer to me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
October 17, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jscott73: That's why I am a bit fearful of that, especially because Phoenix sucks if you're a home seller right now. At least 50% of the \"sales\" right now are foreclosures.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
October 16, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love this idea. My S.O. and I were contemplating cohabitation but didn't think we were ready to do it. We'd thought about doing it anyway just to get the credit. If they're extending it, I think it'll help us next year, when we're actually ready to buy a house together.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
laserjobs
October 16, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

According to the NAHB this would result in 383,000 additional home sales. Dividing $40 billion by 383 thousand gives $104,400 per additional home sold!


[www.nahb.org]


Over $100k to sell one additional house, it would be crazy for congress to extend the program.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
October 16, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@laserjobs: The article has Brookings using a different interpretation of the estimates to yield $40,000 per home. Still too much...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
INsano
October 16, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Gee, it was difficult to see this coming...I thought they'd just let it expire and watch home prices that they're so desperate to prop up, fall.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tailstoo
October 16, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@INsano: This is the problem - the credit just delays the drop in real estate again... all of the numbers that made people so excited over the summer were just keeping sales high for the duration of the credit.

Look at the cash for clunkers - you couldn't give a car away right now...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
fs2k2isfun
October 16, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Once an entitlement starts, its very difficult to get it killed. RIP fiscal conservatism.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
moore850
October 16, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

how about extending it retroactively so i dont have to pay my 7500 government tax house credit loan back?

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DrLumen
October 16, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

People forget that the $8K is actually part of the stimulus package. To get it you have to buy a house. I don't think it is so much as a way to prop up the housing market but a way to increase business in general. I just closed on my first house 3 weeks ago. The $8K was a part of my decision to buy now. I have been considering buying a home for a couple of years and now was a good time.

Keep in mind that it does seem to affect home prices a bit but since the credit is only available to first time home buyers it does not affect the house prices that much. Most homes are being sold to investors - at least in this area. Since the investors don't qualify for the credit, the prices aren't inflated that much.

I think it is also good for business in general as I, like I think most people, will be spending at the local businesses like for new carpet, paint, appliances and possibly for solar panels and solar water heaters, etc. It does seem like there is some artificial inflation of prices at those companies.

Plus, I figure if the banks and the car companies can ask for billions upon billions, I don't have any moral problems with carving out my $8K!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mommiest
October 16, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nothing against those of you trying to buy a house right now, but there are better ways to spend tax dollars. Hire more teachers and police. Better schools in safer neighborhoods always push home prices up, ask any real estate agent. The effect lasts longer, too.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Vjeszczi
October 17, 2009 3:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Any chance they might revise it on the front end? We purchased our first new home 9 days before this credit started, it made me sad

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
attackgypsy
October 17, 2009 7:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

They're trying to attach this as an amendment to the Unemployment Extension, which is holding that up. This is causing people to LOSE their homes more than save people money.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
pot_roast
October 19, 2009 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh great.. letting current homeowners buy a new house? That's what contributed to the LAST bubble - senior citizens buying homes as \"investment properties.\" Too many people listening to Carlton Sheets and buying houses as their 'nest egg.' And that's exactly what would happen, too. More 'investment' properties and speculators buying up stuff they really can't afford.

Reply
","","");