That doesn't change anything. It just means they were pushing home-ownership as a way to appease the laborers unions and the construction industry.
You have to decide what you want; do you want "stimulus" that stimulates the government/corporate/union-complex and help them grow, or do you want stable fiscal policy that keeps prices in line with actual value?
If you prefer special-interest "stimulus," just be honest enough to admit it.
PS - The fact is, not EVERYONE should own a home at all stages of their lives. One of the fundamentals strengths of the American economy has been the mobility of its work force. Tie people down to houses that plummet in value after they sign the loan papers, and you no longer have mobile work force.
Even if ending this deduction is in and of itself a good idea now would be an exceptionally bad time to do it.
And it has not been the case that houses “plummet” in value like new cars, so that is just a red herring.
I lived in rental apts. my entire life until 3 years ago so I know all about them. In many cases your rent goes up and up. In other cases you have very little security if you don’t want to move. They may as well be counted as a stimulus for the moving van industry if you want to look at it that way.
But regardless of all these things the solution to our problems isn’t giving more money to the government. They’ve squandered much of what they’ve been given and they will certainly squander any additional funds sent their way.
Taxed Enough Already was the slogan I thought, not gee, let me ask what more I can do for my government and “the children”.
Let the democrats make these gimme more proposals, our side needs to find a better way.