Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Gaea]

we would be better off today had businesses been allowed to fail.

Walk me through your logic here. Explain how you come to that conclusion.

Do not respond by asking questions.

 

[Gaea]

So because the buzz word Transparency was used, you think it's good? It actually solved nothing.

I do not subscribe to WSJ so I cannot read the article. So I will respond with a link that you are free to read (and is a little more informative than a mere article)

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Baily-Klein-PPTF-1.pdf

One example of a clear benefit to consumers which came from Dodd-Frank: the CFPB

Pre-crisis problem: Consumer financial protection took a back seat
Bifurcated regulatory authority, limited regulatory will, and a lack of legal authority to regulate non-bank consumer products led to substandard consumer protections in many parts of the country. Consumers were abused in the mortgage, credit card, small-dollar lending, and other markets.

Solution: Consolidate consumer protection in one agency with expanded jurisdiction to create a level playing field
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created with a single mission to focus on consumer protection. Authority was realigned and expanded to cover most major consumer products. Independent funding was secured along with very competent senior leadership. The agency was successfully launched and has been actively engaged.

The CFPB quickly established itself as a major financial regulator.
The Bureau has engaged both bank and non-bank lenders, consumers, and policy makers in tackling a range of critical issues. It is hard to think of any new federal regulatory agency that has had as much impact in its first few years.

 

[austrianecon]

I do not subscribe to WSJ so I cannot read the article. So I will respond with a link that you are free to read (and is a little more informative than a mere article)

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Baily-Klein-PPTF-1.pdf

One example of a clear benefit to consumers which came from Dodd-Frank: the CFPB

Brookings isn't really objective and never has been. It's like using Brookings to justify staying in Iraq. Since Dodd-Frank free checking accounts went from 75% of the market to less then 40%. Think about that. Dodd-Frank gave special "title" to certain companies aka TBTF. This hit community banks or regional banks very hard because the regulatory cost are higher for them a % of revenue.

 

[Gaea]

Brookings isn't really objective and never has been. It's like using Brookings to justify staying in Iraq.

...What?

https://www.brookings.edu/about-us/

 

[cpwill]

EITC takes a $15,000 income into close to $20,000 income. It is the most effective way to decrease poverty. I favor a NIT (Negative Income Tax) as it kills two birds with one stone. It gets rid of Minimum Wage laws and gets rid of entitlement benefits.

You and me both.

 

[Conservative]

Walk me through your logic here. Explain how you come to that conclusion.

Do not respond by asking questions.

What TARP did was recapitalize the banks who had made poor investments and thus prevented them from failing. All the banks weren't in trouble and some were forced to take TARP against their will. Too big to fail was the term used by both the Democrats and Republicans, Fear of another depression was sold to the American people, so the govt. bailed out those banks. In business there are consequences for failure and poor choices. Whether or not we would have gone into a depression is unknown as if what would have happened if the banks that received TARP would have failed. They weren't given the opportunity to solve their own problems nor were they allowed to be taken over by another bank.

Did you notice how quickly the banks paid back TARP? Doesn't that strike you as rather strange. Here are a couple articles that explain it well. We were sold a bill of goods and the true reality is that the federal govt. has now basically stated that there are no consequences for poor choices, something the left has said for years.

TARP After Three Years: It Made Things Worse, Not Better - Forbeswww.forbes.com/.../tarp-after-three-years-it-made-things-worse-not-better/

Was TARP Good for the Taxpayers? | Mises Institute
https://mises.org/library/was-tarp-good-taxpayers

 

[ttwtt78640]

What TARP did was recapitalize the banks who had made poor investments and thus prevented them from failing. All the banks weren't in trouble and some were forced to take TARP against their will. Too big to fail was the term used by both the Democrats and Republicans, Fear of another depression was sold to the American people, so the govt. bailed out those banks. In business there are consequences for failure and poor choices. Whether or not we would have gone into a depression is unknown as if what would have happened if the banks that received TARP would have failed. They weren't given the opportunity to solve their own problems nor were they allowed to be taken over by another bank.

Did you notice how quickly the banks paid back TARP? Doesn't that strike you as rather strange. Here are a couple articles that explain it well. We were sold a bill of goods and the true reality is that the federal govt. has now basically stated that there are no consequences for poor choices, something the left has said for years.

TARP After Three Years: It Made Things Worse, Not Better - Forbeswww.forbes.com/.../tarp-after-three-years-it-made-things-worse-not-better/

Was TARP Good for the Taxpayers? | Mises Institute
https://mises.org/library/was-tarp-good-taxpayers

That (bolded above) is getting worse, not better, as a greater pecentage of loans are made directly by (or backed) by the federal government.

Tax money was at risk no matter what with so many federal mortgage insurance guarantees in the mix.

Why the federal government now holds nearly 50% of all residential mortgages - MarketWatch

 

[jaeger19]

[

What resources are being strained? The US produces more food than it can consume. It has more coal than it can burn. It is still one of the largest oil producers in the world. Forest resources haven't change in decades, and in fact in some developed nations, forest cover is ticking upwards, as a result of better environmental management, and the general trend towards urbanization.

If the future leans towards solar power, how long before that is depleted do you think? If thorium, a safer method of fueling nuclear reactors takes hold, who has large reserves of thorium?

Instead of your red herring photo of India, how about displaying the horrors of village life in England or France, with 6x the population density of the US? Too awful for the kids to see?

You are scrambling sideways again, because as usual, the only thing too awful for you is admitting your are wrong, and not informed on everything.

Dude.. you just pointed out the struggles of California with water.

Cost and Health Consequences of Air Pollution in California | RAND
Shall we discuss the health ramifications of Californias air quality:

As far as forest resources in the US?

For example, 90 percent of continental United States’ indigenous forest has been removed since 1600

Shall we discuss wetlands?

As a result, sizeable chunks of wetlands die. Surviving wetlands are battered by rainwater runoff pouring from newly built surfaces such as driveways and roads, and much of that water is polluted with garbage, toxins and fine particle sediment. Wetlands can’t handle the added deluge.

“The plumbing of the whole system is altered,” said Dahl, a senior scientist for wetlands status and trends for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dahl and his co-author, Susan-Marie Stedman, a fisheries biologist for NOAA, were clear about the potential effects of such a massive decline.

“You lose places for those organisms to breed, feed, rest,” Dahl said. “You’re losing some capability for other environmental functions like filtering pollutants, providing some protection from storm damage.

“You’re losing recreational opportunities for bird-watching and canoeing. You’re affecting hydrology. The areas are no longer able to retain water. The hydrology is changing and we don’t recognize what the full implications are,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-says-us-cant-keep-up-with-loss-of-wetlands/2013/12/08/c4801be8-5d2e-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html

Instead of your red herring photo of India,

to funny. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP INDIA AS AN EXAMPLE!!

Sorry sir.. but the only scrambling is you... because as usual.. the only thing to awful for you to admit is hat you are wrong and not informed on well.. it appears anything.
From taxes, to corporation.. to now the environment.

(Dude you brought up India as an example of how a country can sustain population growth! :doh)

Now..as far as this:

If the future leans towards solar power, how long before that is depleted do you think? If thorium, a safer method of fueling nuclear reactors takes hold, who has large reserves of thorium?

A perfect example of what I already said. One of the reasons we have problems environmentally is on reliance of technology to bail the next generation out from the consequences of the excesses of the previous generation.

 

[Ganesh]

Dude.. you just pointed out the struggles of California with water.

Cost and Health Consequences of Air Pollution in California | RAND
Shall we discuss the health ramifications of Californias air quality:

Hey, what is that thing in the corner? It's a crawfish.......no wait........it's jaeger...scuttling sideways again!

I pointed out nothing about California and water, that was another poster. Sure, when you have high populations living in a relatively dry area, water can be an issue. That doesn't mean an insurmountable issue.

As far as forest resources in the US?

Nice try, but you are again side stepping the issue. Of course the landscape has changed after the influx of 300 million + people. How does the rollback of forest cover preclude further population growth? It does not. Wood was a prime resource in the past, but today forest cover is stable in most developed countries, and even increasing is some circumstances.

Shall we discuss wetlands?

As a result, sizeable chunks of wetlands die. Surviving wetlands are battered by rainwater runoff pouring from newly built surfaces such as driveways and roads, and much of that water is polluted with garbage, toxins and fine particle sediment. Wetlands can’t handle the added deluge.






https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-says-us-cant-keep-up-with-loss-of-wetlands/2013/12/08/c4801be8-5d2e-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html

I'm sure you will discuss wetlands, if you think it will divert readers here from your failure to make a coherent argument. Again, where did I say that there are no environmental issues to address? There are, but that does not mean growth is impossible, but that we must incorporate a deeper knowledge of the environment into planning. Wetlands can be preserved with zoning regulations and emission controls. You are truly grasping at straws here.

to funny. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP INDIA AS AN EXAMPLE!!

Sorry sir.. but the only scrambling is you... because as usual.. the only thing to awful for you to admit is hat you are wrong and not informed on well.. it appears anything.
From taxes, to corporation.. to now the environment.

(Dude you brought up India as an example of how a country can sustain population growth! :doh)

Mr J......I hope you are not being a naughty boy, and fudging the line between exaggeration and lie, are you? I suggested the examples of Singapore, the UK, Germany, and France as nations that have handled high population densities (much greater than the US has) not only effectively, but better than the US. You passed on comment of that, but combed the net for a picture of a place where population growth is not being handled all that well. If you are going to make comparisons, do so with relevant places. There are historical reasons why places like India and China are in the mess they are in, but there is absolutely no rationale to insist that the US must go the same way.

 

[Critter7r]

....

For example, 90 percent of continental United States’ indigenous forest has been removed since 1600

...

That doesn't mean that there are no trees. The important word there is "indigenous". The trees that were here when Europeans "discovered" the continent are gone, so what? Trees die. More trees grow.


Nearly 100% of the cars from the 70's have been destroyed, that doesn't mean the country is without cars. The people that were alive in the 1800's are all dead too, are there no people left in the U.S.?

 

[backpacker]

That doesn't mean that there are no trees. The important word there is "indigenous". The trees that were here when Europeans "discovered" the continent are gone, so what? Trees die. More trees grow.


Nearly 100% of the cars from the 70's have been destroyed, that doesn't mean the country is without cars. The people that were alive in the 1800's are all dead too, are there no people left in the U.S.?

Not defending whatever argument he was making, but the issue on this point is not trees but forests. Some might see cutting down 100 acres with 100 trees per acres and replanting them with 125 trees per acre a good thing if they think about in in terms of trees. Forests themselves are ecosystems beyond the trees and destroying them destroys the local ecology, including plants, animals, and insects that lived in your 100 tree/acre forest that won't be alive in your 125 tree/acre forest. Not sure what any of this has to do with the subject of the thread, but thought I would encourage you to rethink how you seem to view forests.

 

[Gaea]

What TARP did was recapitalize the banks who had made poor investments and thus prevented them from failing. All the banks weren't in trouble and some were forced to take TARP against their will. Too big to fail was the term used by both the Democrats and Republicans, Fear of another depression was sold to the American people, so the govt. bailed out those banks. In business there are consequences for failure and poor choices. Whether or not we would have gone into a depression is unknown as if what would have happened if the banks that received TARP would have failed. They weren't given the opportunity to solve their own problems nor were they allowed to be taken over by another bank.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you'd be willing to risk a depression that extended the recession into the present day in exchange for being able to let leveraged banks fail. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that sentiment.

Did you notice how quickly the banks paid back TARP? Doesn't that strike you as rather strange. Here are a couple articles that explain it well. We were sold a bill of goods and the true reality is that the federal govt. has now basically stated that there are no consequences for poor choices, something the left has said for years.

No, that does not strike me as strange. The banks that received "bailouts" were not over-leveraged as the public believes. It was the lack of confidence in the banks that drove so many into bankruptcy. Here's a great article on the subject:

The meltdown explanation that melts away

TARP After Three Years: It Made Things Worse, Not Better - Forbeswww.forbes.com/.../tarp-after-three-years-it-made-things-worse-not-better/

Was TARP Good for the Taxpayers? | Mises Institute
https://mises.org/library/was-tarp-good-taxpayers

I read both.

The Forbes article argument basically hinges on "the stock market performed worse in the 5 months after the passage of TARP than in the 5 months before" and treated correlation as causation.

The Mises article was considerably worse. It was mostly a series of obnoxious opinions accompanied by the occasional fact, none of which suggested TARP was a bad thing.

 

[Conservative]

Gaea;1066296365]If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you'd be willing to risk a depression that extended the recession into the present day in exchange for being able to let leveraged banks fail. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that sentiment.



No, that does not strike me as strange. The banks that received "bailouts" were not over-leveraged as the public believes. It was the lack of confidence in the banks that drove so many into bankruptcy. Here's a great article on the subject:



I read both.

The Forbes article argument basically hinges on "the stock market performed worse in the 5 months after the passage of TARP than in the 5 months before" and treated correlation as causation.

The Mises article was considerably worse. It was mostly a series of obnoxious opinions accompanied by the occasional fact, none of which suggested TARP was a bad thing.

You understand completely because I have more faith in the US economy than apparently you do. Sometimes tough love is needed and it was needed then. The can was kicked down the road and the article explains it well.

you want to focus on the article talking about the stock market a few months after the collapse pointing to it now and ignore the current situation today where another bubble is being formed which will be worse than this one especially as we approach 20 trillion in debt. There is absolutely no difference today than there was back when the original bubble was created, low interest rates, low investment opportunities for any kind of return on investment, plenty of money to drive up demand especially in housing. We are being set up again

 

[Gaea]

Dude.. you just pointed out the struggles of California with water.

Cost and Health Consequences of Air Pollution in California | RAND
Shall we discuss the health ramifications of Californias air quality:

As far as forest resources in the US?



Shall we discuss wetlands?

As a result, sizeable chunks of wetlands die. Surviving wetlands are battered by rainwater runoff pouring from newly built surfaces such as driveways and roads, and much of that water is polluted with garbage, toxins and fine particle sediment. Wetlands can’t handle the added deluge.






https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-says-us-cant-keep-up-with-loss-of-wetlands/2013/12/08/c4801be8-5d2e-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html



to funny. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP INDIA AS AN EXAMPLE!!

Sorry sir.. but the only scrambling is you... because as usual.. the only thing to awful for you to admit is hat you are wrong and not informed on well.. it appears anything.
From taxes, to corporation.. to now the environment.

(Dude you brought up India as an example of how a country can sustain population growth! :doh)

Now..as far as this:



A perfect example of what I already said. One of the reasons we have problems environmentally is on reliance of technology to bail the next generation out from the consequences of the excesses of the previous generation.

I think you're mis-attributing quotes. I'm the one who used India as an example, not Ganesh. I also wrote about California's water issues (and solutions). I did not write what you attributed to me re: thorium.

The point is, technological advances have enabled us to have far greater population density than in the old days.

If the United States had contained 300 million people in 1870, there would be no natural habitat left. Famine would be the norm. Factories would dump far more chemicals into the air, which would cause mass sickness.

You cannot divorce population growth from technology. They are intertwined. Technological advances over the course of history have quite literally been the determining factor in how populations are able to expand quickly.

 

[Gaea]

You understand completely because I have more faith in the US economy than apparently you do.

Definition of faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That's exactly what this comes down to. You have faith in market mechanisms that have not been proven to work.

I apply knowledge of the past to extrapolate into alternate scenarios & the future.

 

[Conservative]

Definition of faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That's exactly what this comes down to. You have faith in market mechanisms that have not been proven to work.

I apply knowledge of the past to extrapolate into alternate scenarios & the future.

this is about understanding the private sector economy and you don't. I have total faith in the American people generating results and overcoming difficulty. You are too used to never being responsible for any failures and always having someone there to bail you out. The banks that would have failed could have merged with another bank and wouldn't be holding worthless assets.

One of these days you are going to learn that being book smart is only part of the equation and what you learn in your books doesn't always relate to the real world as your books don't take into account human behavior. I graduated college with a BS degree in Business and all that education did for me was open the door to a good job where I had to relearn real life principles and how business really works. By getting an education and gaining street smarts I have the experience that has been beneficial to a lot of people. One of these days it may be beneficial to you, hopefully

 

[jaeger19]

Hey, what is that thing in the corner? It's a crawfish.......no wait........it's jaeger...scuttling sideways again!

I pointed out nothing about California and water, that was another poster. Sure, when you have high populations living in a relatively dry area, water can be an issue. That doesn't mean an insurmountable issue.


.

Ooops. My bad.. :3oops:

Whats your argument...oh yeah..."if you live in a dry area you are bound to have water problems".

:doh

Nice try, but you are again side stepping the issue. Of course the landscape has changed after the influx of 300 million + people. How does the rollback of forest cover preclude further population growth? It does not. Wood was a prime resource in the past, but today forest cover is stable in most developed countries, and even increasing is some circumstances.

Wow.. really..

let me educate you.

1. Forests help us breath. they produce oxygen while absorbing carbon dioxide

2. Forests act as filters soaking up surface run off and cleaning it from toxins.. either by sequestering it, or degrading them. (phytomediation)

3. Forests act as filter of the air.. they not only capture co2 they capture carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide

4. forests also stop soil erosion

5. forest help to refill aquifers

6. forests help control flooding.

All of those things effect populations and population growth.

I'm sure you will discuss wetlands, if you think it will divert readers here from your failure to make a coherent argument. Again, where did I say that there are no environmental issues to address? There are, but that does not mean growth is impossible, but that we must incorporate a deeper knowledge of the environment into planning. Wetlands can be preserved with zoning regulations and emission controls. You are truly grasping at straws here.

Too funny.. you are the one crawfishing. So now.. resources do matter.. the environment does matter.. and now you have gone from being able to double our population in a few decades... to "well that does not meant growth is impossible".

By the way.. yes. we need to incorporate a deeper knowledge of the environment into planning. That's starts with recognizing the importance of the environment what a sustainable population is.

Mr J......I hope you are not being a naughty boy, and fudging the line between exaggeration and lie, are you? I

Nope.. I mixed up your quote with Gaea.

But if you would like to discuss France.. we can:

Does Paris have worse air pollution than Beijing?

On Friday, levels of pollution in Paris were higher than in many of the world’s most notoriously polluted cities. With your help, Karl Mathiesen, investigates how the City of Light became the City of Smog.

We can talk about Singapore as well

Being self-sufficient with rainfall, Singapore is still struggling with the availability of fresh water due to dense population compared to the livable area available. Nearly half of its water is piped in from Malaysia through agreements set to expire in mid-century. The government is attempting to become autonomous through retention reservoirs, desalination plants and the reclamation of sewer water, marketed as NeWater, mostly for non-potable purposes. An estimated 70 percent of Singapore’s sewage is recycled, and the remainder is retreated and discharged into the sea.

A serious environmental concern arises when water for domestic use and drinking gets mixed with contaminants. This can be related to all the processes where contaminated water runs out from different areas mix with oceans and reservoirs.

We can discuss Germany as well:

Like many industrialized nations, Germany has a significant air pollution problem, but unlike other Western countries it has worsened in recent years.

After the Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German government adopted a policy of phasing out the country’s nuclear power plants. To do so, the government allowed for utilities to burn more coal and as a result, the air pollution levels in 2012 and 2013 were two of the highest since the 1980s.

 

[jaeger19]

That doesn't mean that there are no trees. The important word there is "indigenous". The trees that were here when Europeans "discovered" the continent are gone, so what? Trees die. More trees grow.


Nearly 100% of the cars from the 70's have been destroyed, that doesn't mean the country is without cars. The people that were alive in the 1800's are all dead too, are there no people left in the U.S.?

Well.. backpacker really said it.

the key here is forest.... and how that ecosystem operates and how that affects human populations.

Forests are key to sustainable human population. They are oxygen generators, scrub the air of pollutants, filter run off water, help recharge aquifers, produce homes for all sorts of flora and fauna.. (that play roles in such things as pollination of human agricultural processes), protect fields from wind. Prevent soil erosion,,, and scrub contaminated soils. And that's just a few things.

 

[jaeger19]

I think you're mis-attributing quotes. I'm the one who used India as an example, not Ganesh. I also wrote about California's water issues (and solutions). I did not write what you attributed to me re: thorium.

The point is, technological advances have enabled us to have far greater population density than in the old days.

If the United States had contained 300 million people in 1870, there would be no natural habitat left. Famine would be the norm. Factories would dump far more chemicals into the air, which would cause mass sickness.

You cannot divorce population growth from technology. They are intertwined. Technological advances over the course of history have quite literally been the determining factor in how populations are able to expand quickly.

and you cannot divorce population growth from the environment and environmental resources.. they are very much interwined.

And yes.. technology has allowed populations to expand quickly.. in many instances, by using up resources faster, or by harming other resources in the long term.

 

[James972]

And yes.. technology has allowed populations to expand quickly.. in many instances, by using up resources faster, or by harming other resources in the long term.

10000% wrong and liberal stupid of course!!!! we are using resources and inventing new resources faster than ever while population is far larger than ever and living far better than ever. So you got it 100% backwards. Remember ,when you parrot the liberal line rather than think you will always look silly.

 

[Gaea]

and you cannot divorce population growth from the environment and environmental resources.. they are very much intertwined.

And yes.. technology has allowed populations to expand quickly.. in many instances, by using up resources faster, or by harming other resources in the long term.

And in many more instances, technology has enabled civilization to improve efficiency while using up resources more slowly, or by harming other resources less.

An excellent example of this is crop rotation, which was a way of protecting the soil from becoming depleted. The advent of crop rotation meant less demand for farmland and less deforestation.

 

[Ganesh]

Ooops. My bad.. :3oops:

Whats your argument...oh yeah..."if you live in a dry area you are bound to have water problems".

:doh



Wow.. really..

let me educate you.

1. Forests help us breath. they produce oxygen while absorbing carbon dioxide

2. Forests act as filters soaking up surface run off and cleaning it from toxins.. either by sequestering it, or degrading them. (phytomediation)

3. Forests act as filter of the air.. they not only capture co2 they capture carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide

4. forests also stop soil erosion

5. forest help to refill aquifers

6. forests help control flooding.

All of those things effect populations and population growth.




Too funny.. you are the one crawfishing. So now.. resources do matter.. the environment does matter.. and now you have gone from being able to double our population in a few decades... to "well that does not meant growth is impossible".

By the way.. yes. we need to incorporate a deeper knowledge of the environment into planning. That's starts with recognizing the importance of the environment what a sustainable population is.



Nope.. I mixed up your quote with Gaea.

But if you would like to discuss France.. we can:




We can talk about Singapore as well



We can discuss Germany as well:

Cribbed notes from an ecology 101 reader, a pathetic attempt to mis-quote, feigned surprise that a compact city state might get some of its water from outside, and an absurd suggestion that air pollution is worse in Europe than in China.

You really are a naughty boy Mr J. And you are taking time out from your business empire to write this stuff?

 

[Gaea]

an absurd suggestion that air pollution is worse in Europe than in China.

What! You mean to say air pollution is bad in China!?!? Don't be ridiculous! :lol:

 

[rocket88]

The issue is what ended the recession, and it was TARP, that was a Bush initiated program. It ended the recession but kicked the can down the road. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Still can't answer a simple question. Should Obama have done more to regulate the banks given their lack of change? Why do you want to glorify Bush for a mistake? If TARP ended the recession, why was it a mistake?

 

[Conservative]

Still can't answer a simple question. Should Obama have done more to regulate the banks given their lack of change? Why do you want to glorify Bush for a mistake? If TARP ended the recession, why was it a mistake?

Obama did absolutely nothing to promote the private sector and the results show it. I don't glorify Bush just state the facts, it was TARP that brought us out of recession nothing Obama did. There is plenty that Bush did wrong and I include TARP in that however it did bring us out of recession by kicking the can down the road. This next bubble is going to actually lead to another depression because too many people are dependent on the govt. unlike before