There is commentary that Trump's policies and actions may have an "intended" side effect of letting some of the air out of the market bubble -- in stocks, that is.

The problem with such a view is that it is much like putting a bandage on a sucking chest wound -- the reason you have the wound is that something punctured your chest; if that thing is still in there (e.g. a bullet) you better do surgery and get it out, and if its not you better debride the wound, repair any internal injuries and close the hole, not put a bandage over it.  In either case while you might be able to get the person to an OR that way its not a solution to the problem.

The problem, in this case, is runaway deficits and the place it is occurring is in part in NGO and similar spending thus addressing that is a positive but the root of the issue -- nearly all of it -- is in the medical (and post-secondary educational) sectors.  Worse, the now-passed CR in the House (which still must be voted on in the Senate) does nothing to address any of it because it does not cut back a single dollar of deficit spending -- it in fact continues all of it through September 30th.

The problem isn't "insurance" or "financing" it is cost and to the extent that you allow cost-shifting via either financing or "insurance" you make it worse because the market pressure that otherwise keeps cost in check (that which can't be paid for won't be bought thus irrespective of "demand" the price will fall) has been removed.

Add any sort of cartel behavior to this, such as paying people to do something irrespective of whether the outcome is positive, neutral or negative and you will get people that find ways to arbitrage that very rapidly -- and if that conduct violates a law or three (like 15 USC Chapter 1) but nobody is ever arrested or prosecuted for it then quite-rapidly every such arbitrage opportunity will be abused.

The medical system twice tried to argue (Royal Drug and Maricopa County) that there was an exemption when it came to "health insurance" and similar.  Twice they lost at the Supreme Court so the law is settled.  These are not civil offenses; they are criminal felonies carrying 10 year prison terms and yet nobody will bring said charges.

The same is true with illegal immigrants.  8 USC 1324 is clear as to the penalties to be imposed on those who harbor, employ or assist illegal immigration and the add-ons in sentencing if you do so and said illegal immigrant turns out to be a violent felon and either injures or kills someone are especially severe.  In fact in the latter case the penalty is life in prison for everyone who aided, abetted or harbored such a person.  Go read the law for yourself; there is no exception for anyone who knowingly, or with reckless disregard, provided such aiding, abetting or employment -- including housing.

You can't realistically deport ten million or more illegal aliens, but you can make it impossible for them to work or live in the United States because nobody will take the risk of going to prison for 10 years or more to facilitate them doing so -- and thus they'll leave on their own.  You need no new laws for this; the law in question has been on the books since the 1950s and if the government starts enforcing it no American will take the now-realized and real risk of hard felony prison time.  If you do this labor value for American citizens and lawful permanent residents will rise and the cost of housing will fall.  The same is true if we end H-1b Visas; labor value for Americans and lawful permanent residents will rise and the cost of housing will fall!  That's two economic beneficial offsets to what will otherwise be a difficult time and both will occur due to the immutable laws of supply and demand with no outside government influence required.

The entirety of the Federal Deficit problem is found in the medical system -- not "Medicare" or "Medicaid" -- the system itself and its pricing models, all of which are facially illegal under Royal Drug where it was ruled that insurance companies that negotiate prices are not immune from an argument they've monopolized or restrained trade.

Never mind Robinson-Patman which makes illegal price discrimination for buyers of like kind and quantity when it comes to physical goods.  You can differentiate in price based on cost of collection or invoicing, sales costs, packaging, delivery and similar but you cannot use pricing differentials as a means of restraining or steering trade and the very presentation of a bill to someone that has a "cash" charge ten times what the "negotiated" price might be is hard evidence of violating all of these statutes.

This distortion, all of it wildly illegal, also greatly increases the cost of employing Americans and thus, in part, drives offshoring of labor to other nations where such constraints and costs do not exist.  If we end it companies will have economic incentive to return jobs to America which increases the American tax base and improves Americans' standard of living.

Congress may not want to cut discretionary spending but Congress does not set spending in these programs; they are "on automatic" and while Congress could curtail these programs its not part of the appropriations process, never mind cutting benefits is political suicide.  You don't have to cut benefits if you take a meat axe to cost by enforcing the law.

The Administration can bring the charges as the Executive is in charge of faithfully executing upon the laws of the United States and there's nothing Congress could do to stop -- but they also cannot force it to happen either.

A recession without addressing this problem will simply make the deficit worse because it will crash stock prices, will likely substantially whack home prices, will seriously impact employment, will do nothing to repatriate jobs back to America and tax receipts will fall while leaving the large contributors to government spending, medical care, untouched or even rising in total spend.

The Trump Administration is out of time on this; the rug has to be pulled out from under these "industries" and the best way to do it is to enforce the law and both void and eject all federal involvement in college cost and loan support, along with revoking the non-discharge nature of student loans in bankruptcy for all forward lending by private parties.

Schools that cannot substantiate to students that their all-in price is worth it and convince private lenders who are entirely at risk if the borrower defaults that the student will be able and willing to pay and thus will not default will be forced to lower costs.  Those that cannot do either with their current structure of programs and such will have no choice but to alter said programs and structures so as to drop cost.

Decades ago higher educational learning without a University was very difficult; the material you needed to study for law, medicine, chemistry, physics and similar was simply not available outside of such enclaves and thus the logical place to acquire said knowledge was to physically be present at said university.  This is no longer true; now virtually everyone can obtain that information and study it from a laptop or even a phone anywhere in the world.  Universities must not be permitted to continue to exploit what amounts to a monopolist position on "credentials and learning" when in fact there is little or nothing unique about them worth that sort of premium.  Yes, access to professors and other learned professionals has value -- but it is much less than it was just 20 years ago, and infinitely less than it was in the 1970s before you had computers and the Internet.

Durable economic rebalancing requires removing the capacity of economic actors to enforce arbitrage.  This is, in fact, what 15 USC Chapter 1 and 8 USC 1324 are about; both are laws designed to criminalize the exploitation of Americans by various means which amount to cartel behavior and only if we demand said laws be evenly enforced against all will we ever see any of these problems resolved.

In short you have to kill the corruption at all levels, including things like promising people "cheaper" energy then tripling the price by mandating "green" power, which makes those installing that capacity a ton of money and screws everyone else.  Its all fine and well if the people vote for that higher price and know what it will be in advance but that is never how this sort of thing has been sold to the public.

There is always some level of grift and fraud in every economy but at a certain point that becomes so attractive in comparison to actually producing goods and services honestly that it expands exponentially and chokes off honest business and entrepreneurship.

If you allow the grift and fraud to continue beyond that point the outcome will be fiscal, economic and social collapse, with each "intervention" to try to stop it producing less benefit for the public at-large, more skewed toward those who control how the intervention happens and each spike higher will be both more-severe and shorter-lived until an effort fails entirely.

History is full of these examples; Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe and many others -- and every one of them has ended in disaster.

Our time to choose otherwise is short -- in fact, it may be on the verge of expiration.

We must choose wisely.