Where is the US economy headed?

History shows us the following truths.

Every tax cut in the past has resulted in increased Federal tax revenues.

Every past tax hike has resulted in reduced Federal tax revenues.

Advocate wrote:

Under Obama, the government will be pay-as-you-go. It is amazing to hear someone give Bush credit for cutting taxes inasmuch this caused deficits to soar. Borrow and spend is what is causing the dollar to sink out of sight. There is no doubt that Obama and the Dems will eliminate the cuts for the super-rich, whose income and wealth has soared under Bush. Cutting some of the military spending would create surpluses.

Cutting spending in every dpet and eliminating the redundancy in govt would also creats surpluses.

Eliminating several depts and agencies that do nothing would also create surpluses, yet you single out the military.

Why is that?

History shows us the following truths.

Every tax cut in the past has resulted in increased Federal tax revenues.

Every past tax hike has resulted in reduced Federal tax revenues.

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Under Obama, the government will be pay-as-you-go. It is amazing to hear someone give Bush credit for cutting taxes inasmuch this caused deficits to soar. Borrow and spend is what is causing the dollar to sink out of sight. There is no doubt that Obama and the Dems will eliminate the cuts for the super-rich, whose income and wealth has soared under Bush. Cutting some of the military spending would create surpluses.

Cutting spending in every dpet and eliminating the redundancy in govt would also creates surpluses.

Eliminating several depts and agencies that do nothing would also create surpluses, yet you single out the military.

Why is that?

What are those departments and agencies that do nothing, the elimination of which would produce surpluses? The military budget is more than bloated. We are spending more for the military than the next 26 countries combined spend for the military.

Advocate wrote:

Under Obama, the government will be pay-as-you-go. It is amazing to hear someone give Bush credit for cutting taxes inasmuch this caused deficits to soar. Borrow and spend is what is causing the dollar to sink out of sight. There is no doubt that Obama and the Dems will eliminate the cuts for the super-rich, whose income and wealth has soared under Bush. Cutting some of the military spending would create surpluses.

Cutting spending in every dpet and eliminating the redundancy in govt would also creats surpluses.

Eliminating several depts and agencies that do nothing would also create surpluses, yet you single out the military.

Why is that?

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Under Obama, the government will be pay-as-you-go. It is amazing to hear someone give Bush credit for cutting taxes inasmuch this caused deficits to soar. Borrow and spend is what is causing the dollar to sink out of sight. There is no doubt that Obama and the Dems will eliminate the cuts for the super-rich, whose income and wealth has soared under Bush. Cutting some of the military spending would create surpluses.

Cutting spending in every dpet and eliminating the redundancy in govt would also creates surpluses.

Eliminating several depts and agencies that do nothing would also create surpluses, yet you single out the military.

Why is that?

What are those departments and agencies that do nothing, the elimination of which would produce surpluses? The military budget is more than bloated. We are spending more for the military than the next 26 countries combined spend for the military.

Lets see...
HUD,
the Dept of Education
Bureau of Indian Affairs
FEC
FCC
The Advisory Committee on student financial assistance
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/edlite-index.html

The US Access Board
http://www.access-board.gov/

The Benefits Review Board
http://www.dol.gov/brb/welcome.html

The list is endless of govt agencies that are useless or not needed or simply a waste of taxpayer money.
Of course, we can add the IRS to the list also.

And then we get rid of all of the govt bureaucrats whose only job is to tell each other how important they are.

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Under Obama, the government will be pay-as-you-go. It is amazing to hear someone give Bush credit for cutting taxes inasmuch this caused deficits to soar. Borrow and spend is what is causing the dollar to sink out of sight. There is no doubt that Obama and the Dems will eliminate the cuts for the super-rich, whose income and wealth has soared under Bush. Cutting some of the military spending would create surpluses.

Cutting spending in every dpet and eliminating the redundancy in govt would also creates surpluses.

Eliminating several depts and agencies that do nothing would also create surpluses, yet you single out the military.

Why is that?

What are those departments and agencies that do nothing, the elimination of which would produce surpluses? The military budget is more than bloated. We are spending more for the military than the next 26 countries combined spend for the military.

Lets see...
HUD,
the Dept of Education
Bureau of Indian Affairs
FEC
FCC
The Advisory Committee on student financial assistance
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/edlite-index.html

The US Access Board
http://www.access-board.gov/

The Benefits Review Board
http://www.dol.gov/brb/welcome.html

The list is endless of govt agencies that are useless or not needed or simply a waste of taxpayer money.
Of course, we can add the IRS to the list also.

And then we get rid of all of the govt bureaucrats whose only job is to tell each other how important they are.

CLAYTON COUNTY, Ga. -- An Extreme Home Makeover may be going bust. The first metro family who got a new home is facing foreclosure.

Channel 2 followed the progress as an army of volunteers swarmed a Clayton County neighborhood to build a new home for a deserving family on "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" in 2005. When the show came to town, no one could have predicted what would happen less than four years later -- foreclosure.

A foreclosure notice appeared last Friday, a $450,000 second mortgage they took out less than 15 months ago was in default.

Patricia Harper, the homeowner, told Channel 2 she and her husband had struck a deal with Chase Home Finance to rescue their "extreme" home. Chase said they couldn't confirm that claim.

"I didn't really know what the circumstances were, I was kind of surprised. I was really surprised to read that," said neighbor Doris Rhodenizer.

Lake City mayor Willie Oswalt was among the 1,800 volunteers helping "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" build the Harper's new home 3 ½ years ago. Beazer Homes of Atlanta was the main sponsor. The mayor said he is baffled.

"Beazer gave them $100,000 cash, paid their mortgage off and they still can't make it," said Oswalt.

Harper told Channel 2 they invested the loan proceeds in a construction business and the business hasn't been good. She didn't say how much of the money is left.

"What's going to happen is instead of keep paying my mortgage, I'm going to take my money and not pay my mortgage because I'm being harassed," said Harper.

Atlanta law firm McCalla Raymer represents Chase. They wouldn't talk about it except to say federal law bars Chase from talking without Harper's permission. Harper said that if Channel 2 wanted proof the foreclosure is off, we should show up at the courthouse next month to watch it not happen.

was it "Chase Home Finance " who gave them a second mortgage of $450,000 ?
whoever gave them the $450,000 must have had little experience in evaluating the worthiness of the borrowers .
my guess is that the lender just said : "you want money ? how much will it be ? " and figured they'd just foreclose on the borrower if things shouldn't work out .

extremely bad judgement by even some of the largest financial institutions is nothing new , is it ?
(one look at the business pages of any financial paper is full of the "large and mighty" that are tumbling - often after the top executives have helped themselves to fat salaries and bonuses . i guess it falls all under the heading of "free enterprise" - "free" of any knowledge and responsibility of how to run a successfull business imo ) .
hbg

What? Are you suggesting that Chase is at fault for these peoples complete idiocy? Do you believe that a bank like Chase would be thinking ""you want money ? how much will it be ? " and figured they'd just foreclose on the borrower if things shouldn't work out.""