This extension isn't for all unemployed. It's only for those that lose their regular benefit the end of 2009. If you lose your benefit 1/1/2010, you do not get this extension plus the other weeks. It's easy for those who are employed to complain. There are no jobs out there to get. We worked all our lives in which these benefits were taken out of our checks and our employers. This is not a freebie. But it's not going to get any better with the rulers we have in D.C. In fact, it's going to get worse with Obamacare. We reap what we sow.

I am in full agreement with you Clark, I myself have needed a "HAND UP" in the past and I grew from it but worked hard to pick myself up...too many "HAND OUTS" makes for a weak and helpless society!

It seems that only the employed complain about the unemployed receiving extended benefits. I guarantee you that most people who are unemployed would like to have your job. Sure there are some who might be taking advantage of the system but can you blame them? No you cannot--it is the corporations who lay you off. Not everyone can just go back to school, create another skill, start a business or find another job in a jobless recovery. Look at the facts before you judge the unemployed.
1 job is available for 6 looking for work. That's on average in very few cities. Human Resources are complaining about mountains of resumes sent in but only 1 job was advertised.

This is massive unemployment and I think
the unemployed need the bail out.Be careful what you say---you might be next in the unemployment line looking for no jobs available.

I lost my job of 8 years in late 2007, one that paid me 50k+ annually, and I never applied for unemployment benefits. Not only do I find the idea of "money for nothing" disgusting, but just 2 days after learning my fate I found a half-ass job in a unrelated field with little effort in an area with high unemployment. I make crap, but it's an income. I immediately enrolled in college being the field I knew and loved was no more. So here I am, the last almost 2 years working 9 hours days 5 days a week and going to class 4-5 hours a day 4-5 days a week, all while living as modestly as I have ever lived, I was more wealthy at 19 than I am now at almost 37. My savings is gone, mostly to college, I live paycheck to paycheck, I'm still kicking and almost finished with my degree and I have yet to collect any assistance from any entity for any reason. My rant, or point if I can call it that, is extending unemployment benefits doesn't help the majority on it to find work, it just makes that person more dependent on uncle sam and in many cases it conditions people to stay unemployed much like welfare does. I know a guy just down the road who lost his state job over a year ago, he is still somehow collecting unemployment checks that are more than I make working. There are jobs here, but, what on earth would motivate him to work for less money than what he's already collecting in unemployment? It's weird to see conservatives, especially ones in the senate, to vote in favor of a "social" program for the working class, it's just so not like them. Anyway, I'm for unemployment for people who have involuntary lost their job, but any benefits over a 6 month period is just ridiculous. If were going to do this than let's just start sending checks to everyone who isn't working and just base the amount on the area and not how much they made, to exclude those not in the unemployment system yet are still unemployed is hardly fair. Maybe start sending checks to the under-paid to, that's a group in itself that is much larger than the unemployed. Ranting.

Housing in grossly inflated. It use to be, that older homes were devalued because they were OLD! The house was aging and it would cost a new owner money to keep it up with roofing, plumbing, electrical, fire-places, windows/doors and bug infestations.

New houses cost more in the same neighborhoods because the buyer got a NEW HOUSE. No problems the house hadn't age yet.

People usually sold the old house for a new house.

But, somewhere along the way, people started excepting the inflated OLD HOUSE price listed by the sellers.

Buyers don't want to dicker anymore.

they set the limit so it would be more of an incentive to new homeowners, not a bonus to people who just want the credit. so people will not upgrade from/into a home they cant afford that was financed in the last few years they made it 5 years....also i feel the 3 year limit is too easy, it should be first time homeowners period. people who havent owned in 3 years have gone from owning to renting (for some reason) and will probably try to get back to owning and once again biting off more than they can chew, just because there is a good deal with free tax credit on the table to get them in the door.

I have just recently sold my house and will be buying a larger house in the near future. I have read that i will not be able to get the $6500 tax credit because i only owned my old house for 3 years. Am i correct about this? And if so, what is the point in setting the 5 year limitation on people. It seems kind of arbitrary to me.

When a person is unemployed, they are lucky if they can pay rent. How can a person get money to start a business? Yesterday, Clark asked some of us unemployed to return to school for an education in a different field. Again, HOW DO WE PAY FOR THAT?

Advice like this is so lame. We need real jobs. And people looking for older people as reliable. Not "OLD" and useless.