$15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $43K or $133K or $292,000 per home!

[equalizer]

About 80% of people were/are going to buy homes anyway so you subsidize everyone and raise prices of homes, defeating “stated” purpose of subsidy.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/why-expanding-home-buyers-credit-is-a-mistake/

[scaredyclassic]

the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.

[scaredyclassic]

the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.

[scaredyclassic]

the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.

[scaredyclassic]

the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.

[scaredyclassic]

the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]

Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]

Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]

Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]

Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=scaredycat]the problem with the credit isn’t that it’s too big, it’s that it’s too small and not sufficiently targeted. it should be $75,000, targeted to males between the ages of 40 and 50, first time homebuyers, about my height and weight, in my income bracket, who have my last name.[/quote]

Scaredy, excellent post! ROTFLMAO! This is a great parody of all the political patronage that is masquerading as “stimulus” or “social justice” today. There is nothing accidental about the economic “distortions” of evolving new politics. Politician 1 takes from group “A” and gives to group “B” to indirectly buy votes. Education, infrastructure and public services fail while the costs of running a paternalistic government destroy the value of the currency. The good ol’ USA is turning into a banana republic, especially California. Redistribution is a joke, regardless of if the beneficiary is Goldman Sachs, the widow on social security who gets a second $250 bump right at the time her Medicare is getting cut, the unionized “civil servant”, the suburban dual income family who just got a home buyers credit or the third generation welfare family. Maybe the Supreme Court will dust off the tenth amendment and put an end to all these shenanigans, but I doubt it.

[sobmaz]

with the credit about the expire, the last minute frenzy buying will cease.

It won’t matter if it is extended, the rush to buy to get the credit before it expires is over.

I thought inventory would rise about a month before it expired and in the last week it has a bit. Next week will be very telling.

It ought to help your situation.

[sobmaz]

with the credit about the expire, the last minute frenzy buying will cease.

It won’t matter if it is extended, the rush to buy to get the credit before it expires is over.

I thought inventory would rise about a month before it expired and in the last week it has a bit. Next week will be very telling.

It ought to help your situation.

[sobmaz]

with the credit about the expire, the last minute frenzy buying will cease.

It won’t matter if it is extended, the rush to buy to get the credit before it expires is over.

I thought inventory would rise about a month before it expired and in the last week it has a bit. Next week will be very telling.

It ought to help your situation.

[sobmaz]

with the credit about the expire, the last minute frenzy buying will cease.

It won’t matter if it is extended, the rush to buy to get the credit before it expires is over.

I thought inventory would rise about a month before it expired and in the last week it has a bit. Next week will be very telling.

It ought to help your situation.

[Author]

Posts