Dirty Iluvatar, those things in no way directly increase government deficits. Considering less transactions and less activity means they have less to regulate, their regulatory spending should be down.
You don't seem to understand that taxing less and letting people keep more of what they earn is good for the economy; not only does this allow people to buy more stuff, but they make better decisions than government, resulting in better product development (increased rewards for quality, innovation, and price) and more, better stuff for all.
You literally don't understand how free markets provide more stuff and better stuff for everybody, do you? It's not that complicated. Do you choose not to understand these simple processes? You could deny that they're more effective forces than government bureaucrats making decisions for people--which many do while cowering out of offering an explanation. But to deny understanding of these processes is just ignorant and insulting to readers. You can disagree that they're best, but to pretend they don't exist, or that you can't understand these simple concepts, is stupid and disrespectful.
You made a vague reference to mortgage laws, which weren't just Bush; they were a cooperative corrupt effort of both corrupt parties. Government made irresponsible demands of lenders and irresponsibly guaranteed the bad loans they required of lenders.
The whole problem arose because of government and the corrupt collusion of government and the banking industry. The problem arose because of too much government. Yet you speak as if the _only_ and _obvious_ solution to this problem caused by too much government collusion in the free market is... more government?
Where's your explanation? You're claiming that the sole solution to too much government (their collusion with banks [and actions of the fed] caused the housing bubble and subsequent crash) is more government. You presume that government must help us recover from the first problem government has caused; you presume, without explanation, that the free market cannot solve the problems caused by too much government. More government is needed to save us from too much government.
What I love about these naive notions is that they come without any hint of an explanation for us ignorant people who've lived more than a few years away from our mommies. Let us presume that you do understand the free market (a laughable notion), and have intelligently researched the matter and come to the conclusion that only more government can help us to ever recover from the problems caused by too much government (let alone better).
Where's the explanation? What has led you to this conclusion? The problems were caused by too much government in the form of government collusion with the banking industry which allowed, incentivized, and even required irresponsible behavior. Obviously, as you're proposing more government to solve a problem of too much government, readers of your words deserve an explanation. Share with us your wisdom.
At least try. Or accept that you're just repeating what you've been told and stop, because nobody's taking your word for it.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
