No study anyone could present here will ever convince you of anything so it would be worthless bother but reality is better than studies.
So then what does the CBO saying that the leases will bring in 7B in revenue - which is what you started this discussion with - have anything to do with anything?Lets see the model before we propose that this is the cornerstone to the solution that will fix the economy. The model should include the environmental risks and costs to those directly effected.
The housing crisis was caused by easy money plain and simple. When the mortgage eligibility rules were relaxed and income verification/downpayments/creditworthiness downplayed the result was exactly what any rational person would have expected. The question is what caused the standards to be relaxed. Regardless when I hear people blame Bush for the housing collapse I chuckle. I always have the same response, I ask them what specifically did Bush do to cause the housing collapse. No one has ever been able to answer the question.
The question is does cutting govt help the economy. If you look at the countries ranked ahead of us World economic forum's global competitive rankings, the nations that are doing better than us all have more govt involvement. So the stance that the reason why we are doing poorly stems from too much govt involvement, makes little sense. Therefore being dogmatic about cutting the govt to help our economy is really an extremist position.
My opening statement was incorrect. What I should have said is you can not assume that what is happening in Canada and ND will hold true in the rest of USA and use that as your economic platform.
Our country's best economic times were when unions were strongest.
Silver spooned freaks who borrowed money from their moms isn't the answer.
Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...