Could This Be A Shot In The Arm For Our Business?

[hausdok]

This article by Barry Bluestone in the Boston Globe describes a proposed government stimulus program for the housing market. This plan, which allegedly would cost about $10 billion per million homes, envisions a government-run insurance policy for buyers that would ensure buyers against catastrophic loss and motivate new buyers to get into the market.

To read more, click here.

[Ben H]

Hmmm.....interesting plan.

[inspector57]

Just what we need, another government program designed to bail out the country from past government program failures. IMHO, If the government would not have disconnected the risk from reward in the first place there would not have been the artificial increase in prices and thus no real estate bubble to burst.

Insuring against loss of value is again trying to prop up values.

REPEAT after me, risk is good, risk is good. It keeps us from doing stupid things while chasing after the reward. If we have nothing to lose why not buy that McMansion on the hill even though we don't need it and really can't afford it?

Give me a break!

[kurt]

Danger......EPPD.............Entering Potential Political Discussion.......Danger

[Marc]

Got enough govt programs as it is for us to pay for. Don't need any more.

John F Kennedy had a saying: Ask what you can do for your country, not what your country can do for you.

Marc

[hausdok]

Jeez,

Just trying to let folks know about someone's ideas and now we've got soap boxes and protesters on the corner. Can we keep it to a discussion about what, if any, advantage this might have for our profession and steer it away from the political speech? I don't want to have to delete folks' comments or lock the thread.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Jim Morrison]

Mike,

I think the answer is: 'Yes, a program like the Bluestone proposes would be good for the home inspection business.'

But a program like that would be pretty near impossible to get approved and implemented because, well, it's pretty far out there.

I think it would be a pretty hard thing to justify to the average voter, especially this average voter.

Jimmy

[esch]

I have no faith in it working. Seeing the governments track record and all.

I'll stop there

Matt

[Tom Raymond]

Well Jimmy, we'll never get the chance to vote on it precisely because it's that far out there. I mean, we're simply not talking about enough money to attach earmarks to, and there isn't anything in it for politicians or special interest groups with out them.

I gotta say it makes more sense than TARP, Cash for Clunkers, or the silly Cash for Caulkers programs. Lots more bang for our buck.

Tom

[asihi]

It's an interesting idea, but in my opinion, I don't think there's a lot of fence sitters because they're worried about declining home prices. Home prices have already been drastically reduced. I think there's a lot of fence sitters because of employment or I should say unemployment. There's so much uncertianty.

Stabilize the job market and people will be buying again.

But to answer the original question, yes, I think this could definitely help the inspection industry.

Tony

[Chad Fabry]

What else can you buy, use it everyday, alter it, customize it, amortize it, deduct it and depreciate it and then sell it for a profit. I've never quite understood the concept and I've never felt entitled to a profit. I'm always grateful if there is a profit but I buy a house to live in it, not to make money on it; to do otherwise must take the joy out of creating a home.

[kurt]

In areas with jobs, people buy houses.

In areas without jobs, not so much.

Government intervening creating "artificial" jobs creates artificial housing prices. When the artificial job disappears, as they do, so does the home price.

It might give small regional markets a boost. Or not.

This is not an argument for or against.

[Garet]

REPEAT after me, risk is good, risk is good. It keeps us from doing stupid things while chasing after the reward.

That one is going in the file of quotable quotes.

[Ben H]

What else can you buy, use it everyday, alter it, customize it, amortize it, deduct it and depreciate it and then sell it for a profit. I've never quite understood the concept and I've never felt entitled to a profit. I'm always grateful if there is a profit but I buy a house to live in it, not to make money on it; to do otherwise must take the joy out of creating a home.

Well said sir.

[Jim Katen]

. . . REPEAT after me, risk is good, risk is good. It keeps us from doing stupid things while chasing after the reward. If we have nothing to lose why not buy that McMansion on the hill even though we don't need it and really can't afford it?Give me a break!. . .

There's a whole lotta truth in that.

[msteger]

"and a home inspection by a licensed inspector." Not all states license home inspectors.. such as the Commonwealth of PA.

Just what we need...another gov't program run with our tax dollars and more debt.