2011. I think this is just a fancy way of saying that kicking the can down the road until you run out of road is not necessarily a good idea.
In doing so, my fear, which I think is well founded, is that by trying to stave off the collapse of a part of the structure where in 1932 everything did eventually survive pretty much intact, these actions will 3 or 5 or 10 years down the road collapse a much larger part of the financial system. On the other hand, that may be inevitable, or it may be a good thing in the long run - better than losing just part of the system now as occurred in 1932/3. I suspect, though, that's not the case, and that taking the banks into receivership in 2008 and going through the process of investors taking haircuts which is the basis upon which Western Civilization was founded and has prospered for many centuries would have been the correct path to take. The incorrect path I feel Bernanke et al have taken is the path that I believe will lead to a scale of collapse that is on the order of 50 or 100 years.
One reason for thinking that is the convergence of many cyclical factors as we are discussing. So while I don't think what you mentioned is the "main event" we are dealing with, it is part of the mix of things that are converging on the same or similar timelines. By trying to spread out the effects of the real estate bust, Fed and Treasury will be dealing with multiple problems all at once instead of cleaning up one problem at a time. It becomes possible that they will lose control of the multiple problems at a critical time.