Try looking at how much money has been added to the federal debt, not the enron accounting that you're referring to. People who watch msnbc think the gov't deficit accounting numbers are on the level. They think Obama drove his car from Hawaii to Connecticut to pick up his social security number, too.
That Covertibility girl must be a paid left wing poster. She continually gets bitch slapped, and keeps coming back for more. BTW- her thread "Housing keeps rolling along" goes down in ET history as one of the epically awful calls (along with about a dozen of Marketsurfer's train wreck bottom picking calls from 2007-2009).
I've been wondering about this US manufacturing surge. The numbers are in. Cars are selling at over a 17 million per year rate. That's large. Over one third of them are being purchased via sub prime loans. So there you have it. The surge is in a material way due to expansion of high risk debt. When it all goes bad, that'll just be another type of loan the fed adds to their balance sheet.
Go check Treasury.gov. Deficit and additions to the national debt are NOT the same. FY2014 saw a >1 Trillion dollar addition to the national debt, even though the reported "deficit" was lower. FY2013 or FY2012 was around 700 Billion (addition to the debt). So yes, the "deficit" shrunk, now is growing handily again. Check out the CBO budget projections for the next 10 years. At 2016, federal deficit projections are >4% of GDP and growing into the out years. I'm not sure you understand any or all of that, but that is very bad news. Spinning crap like the deficit "shrunk" when America tacked another one Trillion onto the national debt is just partisan tripe. Americas national debt ratio now exceeds 100% debt to GDP. These are red level critical levels, factor in the CBO budget projections, which are rosey crap, and we're seriously fucked.
You people can't be real! It's clear none of you have actually looked at what happens during and after a financial panic. It's also clear none you understand aggregate demand. Let's put it like this: Six years ago you people had a choice, a potentially devastating depression like none other because of how integrated the world is or the Obama slow dragging recovery. And that housing thing, OMG, it was right every day of every week of every month all the way to the top where that selll post called the top.
I don't know anything about your housing thread, but if it was half as bad as your knowledge of macro economics, then I can just imagine the circus it must have been. I have more news for you. Regarding the Obama "slow dragging recovery". There's no recovery, Covertibility. None. Oh, sure, stocks are at all time highs because of money printing (yes, I notice how you dodged my response on that), but main street hasn't recovered. Economic metrics like GDP and spending have all mortgaged the future through the acquisition of more debt. More debt cannot solve problems caused by debt, and eventually all you crazies will get that. All you do when you borrow is take money from the future in order to sustain the purchasing power of today. That's it. Unless you plan on forgiving all that debt, someone has to be paid in the future, and with future earnings. Those future earnings are subtracted from future wealth and you're forced to borrow more in order to maintain standard of living. You are right about one thing, though, it would have been a devastating depression had we allowed the system to reset itself after the financial panic, but we're going to get that anyway. All we've done it guaranteed to make it worse down the line. Printing almost $4 Trillion and spending like we have during the last 6 years to get what little positive we have is proof of this. If we had done this during a real recovery, we'd be soaring around 7-10% GDP. But there are structural flaws that should have been addressed after the crash that never were. Instead, we doubled down on the same corruption, the same rotting financial system devoid of control and proper regulation (I emphasize "proper" because Liberals will leap to the argument that it was the lack of regulation that caused the crash, when it wasn't. It was the lack of enforcement of the existing regulations). We didn't learn our lesson, and so we'll be back at it again soon. But I love the analogy I heard from Jim Grant (think it was him) a year after the financial crisis occurred: "Personally, I'd rather throw up for 6 months straight rather than opting to be nauseous for 20 years". We've chosen the latter, and then we'll have to do the former. Anytime, and I mean anytime, you want to debate facts and numbers with me on this, you feel free to start it.