Student Loan Debt bailout

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I wouldn't mind an increase in tax deductions for student loans. If you are paying back the debt you should be able to deduct it to a greater degree than you can now. Heck, you go to college to get a high paying job, and once you have a high paying job you don't qualify to deduct the student loan interest! Kinda stupid really.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this. The original intention of the deduction was to help out kids just out of college, who do struggle with the payments early in their careers.

I do think that it was a good thing to get rid of the five year time limit, and open up the deduction to anybody below the income-cap. This did ease the sting for people who wanted to go on to less lucrative careers.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

...we need to get smart or get passed by other countries.

I think that's already happened. But we can still put up a fight if we actually tried.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Suddenly I believe that. You could stand to take more math classes, for instance.

Ok... I must have missed something. Please enlighten me so I can laugh at myself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

Not to threadjack, but any thoughts on their MBA program (if you know anything about it). I was considering it b/c of the flexibility.

Generally speaking, I'd put it in the category of those "mid-tier" (or whatever the phrasing was) MBA programs mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It exists, it provides the degree, could prove worthwhile if you're in a situation where simply having one provides a fairly guaranteed income boost or whatever. But it ain't like having a Harvard MBA either (which I'm sure you knew already).

On the whole the MBA students I've encountered from there seemed similar to those in other lower profile programs, decent enough sorts with normal abilities just trying to find an edge if they can or older students trying to make sure they remain competitive on paper with the next gen workers.
Nothing wrong with either of those things afaic, but that's about my .02 on them.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Ok... I must have missed something. Please enlighten me so I can laugh at myself.

Half, All, and "One out of..." do not equal the same thing. Just clowning around while believing that math needs a serious overhaul in our American mindset. It's not important for most of today's jobs, but it is more most of tommorrow's jobs, and the Chineese and Indians are going to be prepared.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I'm not sure I completely agree with this. The original intention of the deduction was to help out kids just out of college, who do struggle with the payments early in their careers.

I do think that it was a good thing to get rid of the five year time limit, and open up the deduction to anybody below the income-cap. This did ease the sting for people who wanted to go on to less lucrative careers.

To me the problem is the income cap. It's too small, and doesn't take into account the cost of living in different parts of the country. People shouldn't be dissuaded from attaining a college or advanced degree by being forced to make a choice between a house or student loan payments. In terms of lawyers, that is a very real choice, unless you work at a top tier firm or have a lucrative solo practice. If you choose public service or public interest law, you don't make much money. In this area, D.A.s and P.D.s don't make enough to pay the student loan bills and live.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Jon

To me the problem is the income cap. It's too small, and doesn't take into account the cost of living in different parts of the country. People shouldn't be dissuaded from attaining a college or advanced degree by being forced to make a choice between a house or student loan payments. In terms of lawyers, that is a very real choice, unless you work at a top tier firm or have a lucrative solo practice. If you choose public service or public interest law, you don't make much money. In this area, D.A.s and P.D.s don't make enough to pay the student loan bills and live.

I do agree with this, but there should be a cap at some point. The deduction should still be a tool to help those struggling to make payments, rather than, as one of the other posters implied, an additional "reward" to those who managed to translate their degree into a high-paying job.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Generally speaking, I'd put it in the category of those "mid-tier" (or whatever the phrasing was) MBA programs mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It exists, it provides the degree, could prove worthwhile if you're in a situation where simply having one provides a fairly guaranteed income boost or whatever. But it ain't like having a Harvard MBA either (which I'm sure you knew already).

On the whole the MBA students I've encountered from there seemed similar to those in other lower profile programs, decent enough sorts with normal abilities just trying to find an edge if they can or older students trying to make sure they remain competitive on paper with the next gen workers.
Nothing wrong with either of those things afaic, but that's about my .02 on them.

Of course. In many cases, you need the MBA as a credential (regardless of quality of the program) required by the position you seek. If viewed in that light (rather than as a general tool to substantially boost your income), then a "mid-tier" program will be useful.

[SportsDino]

My issues with the income cap:

- The main point of all that debt is to get a high paying job, it is also the justification for why everything is so expensive. Making the only tax cut related to it unavailable if the debt actually succeeded in its purpose is a bit ass backwards.

- The tax code is complicated enough.

- You can't really game it, it is unlikely you are going to take out a lot of debt to be able to deduct the interest. Its not like houses where you are dealing with an asset that could theoretically appreciate in value. There may be some marginal ways to exploit it if you are using loan money in weird ways, maybe, but then you are not doing that for the tax writeoff anyway.

- As far as using tax cuts as an incentive, it is actually one of the few that make sense. It is a deduction that applies only if you tried to get an education, and you are paying off your debts. Adding the income cap just means those two things are incentivized only if you happen to be in a low paying job.

- The government is backing a lot of these loans, so why not encourage them slightly more to be paid off if they are on your books.

- If you have hundreds of thousands in loans that built up interest during your years of low paid entry work to get to your payday, why not let you reap a little bit of a reward on the tail-end? Its not big enough of a reward to encourage people to go out of their way for it anyway.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Half of college is just horseshit crap that they force upon you to make more money. I'm all for math, science, english and expanding your knowledge base, but in my 4 years I took 1 class that I wanted to and the rest was shoved down my throat. I would have loved to take more programming classes that would have had some relevance to my major, but unfortunately I had to take "Pre-18th Century Polish Love Poems and the Impact on the French Revolution"

College is one big legal scam.

I can agree with you on this. However, it seems like you need a college degree today just for an entry level position.

[SportsDino]

I don't see any issues with rewarding someone who turned their debt (not just their degree) into a high paying job. I see it as rewarding someone who is paying off their debts that were backed by the government. Some additional nudge for people that were not born into piles of money who nevertheless have pulled themselves up into success.

Compared to giving massive incentive packages to incompetent businesses for doing nothing but shuffling paper and pork, its a positive incentive. I don't care if it gets applied equally to the poor, middle class, or rich... because the very fact it involved loans and they are paying them back, means that they were poor at some point. There is no incentive for a super rich person to fund college through loans for a tax cut later on. Reward hard work, not just the condition of poverty.

[SportsDino]

you do need a college degree for entry positions, all we have done is increased the inefficiency in our economy. For positions that should be sufficient with a high school diploma, we now require thousands of dollars of debt to be incurred, for a job you couldn't pay off such a debt anyway. It is madness. The notion of competition runamuck!

EDIT: The debt being that if you were on scholarship and therefore didn't run up a big bill, you probably are not going to be looking in the market for these low paying entry or simple office jobs since you'll probably be chasing skill jobs. So we are creating a class of jobs designed for the lower tier of college graduates, that are insufficient to likely cover the costs of acquiring the job in the first place.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

you do need a college degree for entry positions, all we have done is increased the inefficiency in our economy. For positions that should be sufficient with a high school diploma, we now require thousands of dollars of debt to be incurred, for a job you couldn't pay off such a debt anyway. It is madness. The notion of competition runamuck!

EDIT: The debt being that if you were on scholarship and therefore didn't run up a big bill, you probably are not going to be looking in the market for these low paying entry or simple office jobs since you'll probably be chasing skill jobs. So we are creating a class of jobs designed for the lower tier of college graduates, that are insufficient to likely cover the costs of acquiring the job in the first place.

Do you think that an associates degree is just as useful a bachelors degree? Usually you just focus on the skills you need for that.

I think outside of careers that you need it (such as medicine, law), I'm starting to see what I got in return exactly.

[Raiders Army]

Aren't we painting all degrees with the same brush? There's a huge difference in earning potential between an Engineering degree and an English degree (as well there should be). I've been looking, but haven't found any recent statistics on what types of degrees are being earned.

The job market for Nuclear Engineers, for example, is better than the job market for someone with a Bachelors Degree in History or Music Appreciation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I do agree with this, but there should be a cap at some point. The deduction should still be a tool to help those struggling to make payments, rather than, as one of the other posters implied, an additional "reward" to those who managed to translate their degree into a high-paying job.

But often times the high-paying careers are the ones who have huge student loan payments.

Say you got your medical degree and became a doctor. It's fair to say you may owe $100k-$150k in student loans. Now you may make $80k a year, but you aren't allowed any deductions. It seems you'd be at a huge disadvantage.

I just don't see why we wouldn't want to make it easier for people to become doctors, scientists, and engineers. Why must we constantly punish people in this country who have worked hard and made a success out of themselves?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I don't see any issues with rewarding someone who turned their debt (not just their degree) into a high paying job. I see it as rewarding someone who is paying off their debts that were backed by the government. Some additional nudge for people that were not born into piles of money who nevertheless have pulled themselves up into success.

Compared to giving massive incentive packages to incompetent businesses for doing nothing but shuffling paper and pork, its a positive incentive. I don't care if it gets applied equally to the poor, middle class, or rich... because the very fact it involved loans and they are paying them back, means that they were poor at some point. There is no incentive for a super rich person to fund college through loans for a tax cut later on. Reward hard work, not just the condition of poverty.

If you are "poor" then Pell Grants will cover (off memory) 2,800 per semester and you never pay it back. Add state grants college FA packages and you can easily get a very reasonable education.

Quite contrarily it is my experience that upper middle class and wealthy families tend to incur the most student loan debt. Part of the is the need for prestige of a select private school, and part is the lifestyle continuation of the silver spoon babies. I also had a friend in college whose parents took out every dime they could in student loans only to invest them while it was interest free and then pay them off as soon the interest was called. 10% over 6 years on a couple hundred Gs adds up/.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Aren't we painting all degrees with the same brush? There's a huge difference in earning potential between an Engineering degree and an English degree (as well there should be). I've been looking, but haven't found any recent statistics on what types of degrees are being earned.

The job market for Nuclear Engineers, for example, is better than the job market for someone with a Bachelors Degree in History or Music Appreciation.

Can't vouch for the accuracy of the data yet, but there's quite a bit of info about salaries as they relate to both degree type & specific school at
Best Colleges, Best College Majors, Best College Degrees

[gstelmack]

Before 9/11 (when interest rates tanked), I knew folks who took out college loans and rolled them into CDs to MAKE money...

[DanGarion]

I didn't read a single post in this thread but I'm going to add my 2 cents.

No.

What's next bailing out people because they have too much credit card debit. People need to learn responsibility.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Generally speaking, I'd put it in the category of those "mid-tier" (or whatever the phrasing was) MBA programs mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It exists, it provides the degree, could prove worthwhile if you're in a situation where simply having one provides a fairly guaranteed income boost or whatever. But it ain't like having a Harvard MBA either (which I'm sure you knew already).

On the whole the MBA students I've encountered from there seemed similar to those in other lower profile programs, decent enough sorts with normal abilities just trying to find an edge if they can or older students trying to make sure they remain competitive on paper with the next gen workers.
Nothing wrong with either of those things afaic, but that's about my .02 on them.

I'll be less diplomatic. It's a waste of your money and you'd be better served finding something more useful to do with it, even if that means traveling to a different part of the country where you can find a job that fits your skills better.

If you want a masters, get it in something that you'll actually benefit from the material. I mean, if you think the program you're applying to will help, have at it. But otherwise? Don't just get it to check a box unless it's free or near free because of tuition assistance or something.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'll be less diplomatic. It's a waste of your money and you'd be better served finding something more useful to do with it, even if that means traveling to a different part of the country where you can find a job that fits your skills better.

If you want a masters, get it in something that you'll actually benefit from the material. I mean, if you think the program you're applying to will help, have at it. But otherwise? Don't just get it to check a box unless it's free or near free because of tuition assistance or something.

So are you saying that MBA's are useless/or not worth it?

[GoldenEagle]

I am in student debt loans out the ass due to my me and getting my bachelors and my wife getting her bachelors and her masters. We did not really get any academic scholarships out of high school and our families made to much money to qualify for much financial aid. We also lived off-campus which added to the cost.

That being said, it is our debt and we paying it off and really don't want any government hand-out. Use the money on something useful.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Can't vouch for the accuracy of the data yet, but there's quite a bit of info about salaries as they relate to both degree type & specific school at
Best Colleges, Best College Majors, Best College Degrees

Thanks. It would seem to me that an Engineering degree is something that is far more worth your while to spend four years than a History degree. One of the jobs for a History degree is an Administrative Assistant?

[SportsDino]

If they are giving out more loans than your college expenses I know there is a money making scheme. That is true regardless of whether there is a tax deduction on the interest payments, and I consider it a separate issue.

You don't take out all those loans to benefit from the tax deduction, you take them out to secure a large source of capital with very generous payback options.

So, a student loan bailout would be rewarding people taking out loans as part of an investment scheme. Eliminating the cap on deductions provides NO economic incentive to take out more loans. It does extend the reward to people over the cap, what is so bad about that?

[remper]

If this issue is looked at simply from the perspective of its possible benefit to the economy, not the personal responsibility angle, would unburdening a good portion of many people's money that is currently going to student loan repayment help the economy in the long run?

I've had the thought myself before, but am by no means an expert in any way, shape or form on finances.

[molson]

Originally Posted by remper

If this issue is looked at simply from the perspective of its possible benefit to the economy, not the personal responsibility angle, would unburdening a good portion of many people's money that is currently going to student loan repayment help the economy in the long run?

I've had the thought myself before, but am by no means an expert in any way, shape or form on finances.

It think it's impossible to separate the two, because encouraging personal responsibility is a benefit to the economy. (If people are bailed out from one bad decision, they'll just make another one with a bad mortgage, etc).

It would free up more money to people, but so does a government stimulus check to everyone, or a tax break. If the government is going to give away money by any means, why do it it for the ones who have behaved the worst?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

It think it's impossible to separate the two, because encouraging personal responsibility is a benefit to the economy. (If people are bailed out from one bad decision, they'll just make another one with a bad mortgage, etc).

It would free up more money to people, but so does a government stimulus check to everyone, or a tax break. If the government is going to give away money by any means, why do it it for the ones who have behaved the worst?

I think, based on the logic of the OP, the idea is..."if we're already bailing people out anyway," then why not bail out a generation that would be more likely to 1) spend on stuff which would be better than a tax break, because you're boosting their net incomes annually and 2) they're more likely to be freed up to do things like get homes or move or do other moves that might provide a more lasting stimulus to the economy.

Far-fetched to be sure, but...it's no less illogical to me than the stuff that's passed as "economic" thought the past few months. What Paulson was able to convince them of and that they did without thinking seem to just plain defy logic.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think, based on the logic of the OP, the idea is..."if we're already bailing people out anyway," then why not bail out a generation that would be more likely to 1) spend on stuff which would be better than a tax break, because you're boosting their net incomes annually and 2) they're more likely to be freed up to do things like get homes or move or do other moves that might provide a more lasting stimulus to the economy.

Far-fetched to be sure, but...it's no less illogical to me than the stuff that's passed as "economic" thought the past few months. What Paulson was able to convince them of and that they did without thinking seem to just plain defy logic.

I guess I see the idea, and if these people were just going to stick to cash from now on, great, but they'll rape and pillage the personal credit market again and again.

The fed gives them money to get out of their loans, so they buy a house that they can't afford, but then then the fed bails them out of that.....

And the credit companies are encouraged to continue to loan the dead-beat money because in the end, the feds pay their bills too.

It's going to be painful to end the cycle, but we have to do it. Or we could just nationalize everything, so that there's no accountability for anyone, anytime. Things would be quite fair and equal, though the dollar wouldn't be worth the paper its printed on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Thanks. It would seem to me that an Engineering degree is something that is far more worth your while to spend four years than a History degree. One of the jobs for a History degree is an Administrative Assistant?

That didn't really surprise me much. Same with Psychology majors frequently becoming administrative assistants, retail store managers, or program coordinators for non-profits. Or English & Poli Sci majors most commonly becoming marketing managers.

We spend a great deal of time teaching people things that have little to do with what they end up doing, and considerably less time teaching people things they need to know once they reach their job/career. Of course anybody who has hired or supervised in the past ten to twenty years knows that already.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That didn't really surprise me much. Same with Psychology majors frequently becoming administrative assistants, retail store managers, or program coordinators for non-profits. Or English & Poli Sci majors most commonly becoming marketing managers.

We spend a great deal of time teaching people things that have little to do with what they end up doing, and considerably less time teaching people things they need to know once they reach their job/career. Of course anybody who has hired or supervised in the past ten to twenty years knows that already.

Very true. Although, I'd still rather have a country full of people with those degrees than ones with none. Perhaps their time spent in college didn't resonate into a high paying job in their field of study, but they've at least picked up some knowledge and raise the nation's collective intelligence level a bit.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That didn't really surprise me much. Same with Psychology majors frequently becoming administrative assistants, retail store managers, or program coordinators for non-profits. Or English & Poli Sci majors most commonly becoming marketing managers.

We spend a great deal of time teaching people things that have little to do with what they end up doing, and considerably less time teaching people things they need to know once they reach their job/career. Of course anybody who has hired or supervised in the past ten to twenty years knows that already.

I kind of disagree here, but I think the disagreement stems from differences in thought as to what college is supposed to be about. Is it meant to be vocational training? Or is it meant to generate traditional "men of letters"? Although I am more sympathetic to the latter view, it certainly is a fair topic for debate (the current reality of "there's probably room for schools with both types of missions" is probably a reasonable solution).

In my experience, while I've supervised very good people from both a traditional liberal arts background and people with more "vocational-focused" majors (Business, Marketing, etc), the ones from good schools with more of an "arts & sciences" background tend to be much easier to train, adapt better to change, and tend to progress much more quickly at my organization.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

I guess I see the idea, and if these people were just going to stick to cash from now on, great, but they'll rape and pillage the credit market again and again.

So will the people being allowed to stay in their homes. And those folks still don't have any money, even if you do restructure their mortgages.

I'm thinking of it from the perspective of freeing up younger generations to do more than just sit still.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I kind of disagree here, but I think the disagreement stems from differences in thought as to what college is supposed to be about. Is it meant to be vocational training? Or is it meant to generate traditional "men of letters"?

The latter works well enough IF you're wealthy enough to have the luxury of paying large sums of money for knowledge for knowledge sake. Better you buy a philosophy degree than your 11th car, works for me.

But we're talking about people borrowing money & investing in something that isn't paying off in a number of cases.

In my experience, while I've supervised very good people from both a traditional liberal arts background and people with more "vocational-focused" majors (Business, Marketing, etc), the ones from good schools with more of an "arts & sciences" background tend to be much easier to train, adapt better to change, and tend to progress much more quickly at my organization.

I can't honestly say I've ever worked with anyone in broadcasting nor advertising (outside of the accounting or technical departments) whose degree prepared them for their actual function nor provided them with any skill that could not have been learned more quickly, at less cost, and with more relevance in either the workplace or a 2 year (or less) specialized program. Especially true on the broadcast side but to a surprising extent on the advertising side as well. As much as anything on new hires there's time spent on untraining them from bad habits acquired in academia.

[CU Tiger]

Hmmmm what if tax stimulus checks were sent to everyone, EXCEPT if you had a student loan your check was applied to that balance....

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But we're talking about people borrowing money & investing in something that isn't paying off in a number of cases.

You can say that about just about anything in this country these days. Just take a look at the average households credit card statement. At least with an education you're increasing the intelligence level of our country somewhat.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You can say that about just about anything in this country these days. Just take a look at the average households credit card statement. At least with an education you're increasing the intelligence level of our country somewhat.

I'm not even sure I buy that argument. I see as many educated idiots with degrees than anything else, not really feeling that's an improvement.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not even sure I buy that argument. I see as many educated idiots with degrees than anything else, not really feeling that's an improvement.

I think it depends on what someone studied, although I think any bit of college education helps. I'm not talking about making people downright intelligent, but just wedding out the complete morons. The people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and can't point out Canada on a map.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it depends on what someone studied, although I think any bit of college education helps. I'm not talking about making people downright intelligent, but just wedding out the complete morons. The people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and can't point out Canada on a map.

Well if you do that then the world will be a lonely place real quick. I am all in favor of getting rid of the extremist on the left and the right though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Noop

I am all in favor of getting rid of the extremist on the left and the right though.

That's like rain on your wedding day right there.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Noop

Well if you do that then the world will be a lonely place real quick. I am all in favor of getting rid of the extremist on the left and the right though.

Not really. I'd just like our country to have an intelligence level on par with the top countries in the world. Having half our country failing basic biology on the Earth's history and evolution is not a good thing.

[DanGarion]

I just don't understand how any sane person would think it's fair for ANY group to be given handouts, because that is what a bail out really is.

Just like buying an house, stocks, anything, even getting a loan for school, these are all investments, and with an investment there is ALWAYS a risk. I'm mean this would be as pathetic as not keeping score in sports, why the fuck even play if there is no chance of winning or losing.

[Passacaglia]

How about a loan bailout comes with a decrease in the strength of your vote? It's like the converse of "no taxation without representation."

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

How about a loan bailout comes with a decrease in the strength of your vote? It's like the converse of "no taxation without representation."

Sounds good to me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Just like buying an house, stocks, anything, even getting a loan for school, these are all investments, and with an investment there is ALWAYS a risk. I'm mean this would be as pathetic as not keeping score in sports, why the fuck even play if there is no chance of winning or losing.

The 200 economists that opposed the financial bailout to Congress said a similar thing. Unwise financial decisions NEED to suffer the consequences, that's how we weed out the crap from the productive. Recessions are a necessary part of a economy - it's an opportunity to clean out the crap.

I'm not as extreme as Ron Paul, but he summed it all up pretty well the other day in an interview:

"First, there is no authority in our constitution that we [Congress] should use taxpayer money to go and bailout companies that have not done well. That alone, should be enough to stop [the bailouts]. Second, it is morally wrong, because you have to take money from somebody who may be productive and reward people who have been non-productive. Third, the economics of [the bailout] are atrocious. Why should we subsidize mistakes? We have been doing that in the past. Our Federal Reserve System has created all the financial bubbles, and now we are suffering the consequences as these financial bubbles collapse. Propping up the mistakes made during the boom phase of the cycle is exactly the wrong thing to do. It prevents the correction [of the economy] and delays the inevitable. In order to get back to economic growth, you have to liquidate the excessive debts and bad investments. The only way you can do that is to just get out of the way. You cannot buy up all the bad debt, but that is what we are doing. This is exactly what we did in the Great Depression. So we are working real hard in the US Congress and with the Federal Reserve to recreate another Great Depression. It makes no sense, what so ever"

Michael Bendetson: Ron Paul Interview

[Young Drachma]

Here's a thought I like more...

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com:

“The package includes $300 billion in government spending and $200 billion in tax cuts. Government spending provides the largest economic bang for the buck, particularly infrastructure spending, as it immediately adds to output and jobs here in the U.S. Aid to state governments will also forestall immediate cuts in programs and jobs that states have to undertake to satisfy their balanced budget requirements. Infrastructure spending will take time to benefit the economy, and a tax cut is necessary to provide some quick support to the economy. A payroll tax holiday and a permanent payroll tax credit would be effective tax cuts, particularly if designed to help harder-pressed lower- and middle-income households and smaller businesses. If I had my druthers, however, the recovery package would be measurably larger than $500 billion. It is important for policy makers to send a strong and clear signal that they will do whatever is necessary to revive the economy. Only a concerted, comprehensive and consistent policy response stands between a severe recession and another depression.”