So, what does all this mean? Honestly, I won’t pretend to understand the full ramifications of this downgrading, but I can tell, from what I have been reading in the Washington Post and New York Times, it isn’t anything good.
What I can ascertain, is that being unable to fully come to the table to compromise is the financial death knell for this country. What if, for example, the Democrats were to say, we will only allow deep tax cuts to cut 4 trillion dollars? Can you imagine, the Republicans would have an epileptic fit! As they rightly should. Inversely, how could the Republicans believe that Democrats would only be willing to sign a deal based on spending cuts alone?
Obama put a deal on the table for 4 trillion dollars, Boehner was willing to talk, but what happens, the Tea Party cuts his feet out from below him. They actually admit, proudly I might add, they are unwilling to compromise.
This quote from the Washington Post says it best. There was actually the beginnings of something really grand, something this country had never seen before, Democrats willing to put their sacred entitlement cows on the table, but where were the Republicans and their sacred cows………AWOL!
S&P’s downgrade was as much a political critique as a financial conclusion. It is based on a view that American political leaders would be unable to come up with at least $4 trillion in savings, which is needed to bring the nation’s debt to a manageable level over the next decade.
How this will effect our overall economy is yet to be seen, there are many different views, the future is uncertain.
S&P stated it bluntly when they made their decision to downgrade, it wasn’t just based on not dealing with the debt, it was based on their belief that Congress would be unable to come together to solve this pressing issue. This wasn’t a time for ideological grandstanding, it was a time for people to come together, in good faith, and compromise. Thanks for nothing Tea Party. I just cannot fathom there were those in the fringe wing of the Republican Party who actually wanted to allow the United States to default? Shocking and Frightening. This truly was a completely self inflicted wound at time when this country could least afford it.
The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenge,” the company said in a statement.
“Obama put a deal on the table for 4 trillion dollars,”
I saw no deal. Where is it? Why did he show it to the public to get support to fight the Republicans? Because he wasn’t willing to put numbers on paper. The WH spokesman admitted that Obama had no plan. Even Reid didn’t have a plan on paper until the last few days.
And the Democrats did pass a deal with only “spending cuts”. They just wanted the deal to extend past elections. They didn’t truly care about a possible default because they knew that it wasn’t going to happen.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/05/video-theyre-still-not-listening-to-rick-santelli/
Rick Santelli, if you remember, is the analyst that inspired the Tea Party to form.
Excerpts from the column accompanying the video:
This one from a commenter concerning why the market is tanking. If true, it explains a lot: Much of the inflation has been in commodities. They got hit pretty good too as money went from them and equities to cash and Treasurys.
I saw a report this morning that $2.5 Trillion in value came out of the world stock markets. Interestingly, the US recently has a need to borrow another $2.5 Trillion. Hmmmmmmmmmm…
Politicians don’t ask where the money is coming from that they borrow. But of course, it comes from investors. So it behooves the government to see a stampede out of equities and into Treasurys. It ain’t called the Safe Haven for nothing. And just when you worry about what a raise in yields would do to the deficit, because of the rush to the exits on Wall Street yields crater; the 2-year treasury now pays one quarter of one percent. Nice doin’ bidness wit ya.
Government wants to chase money from stocks to treasurys. But the it has to follow up with a way to inflate stocks to make the economy seem to improve, which is where QE3 will come in. Enter stage right, we’ve gotten just this morning news of massive QE in Europe to purchase EEU member’s outstanding debt. Naturally, we’re going to respond with our own printing to buy our own debt (and some of theirs), but just a bit less to keep bucky looking good against all other currencies.
Everyone reading Hot Air needs to understand this golden triangle: 1)chase money out of equities, 2) sop it up at low interest to fund new debt, then 3) print to inflate prices
of equities. Wash, rinse, repeat.
And this from Ed Morrisey: The entire problem with this economy is the notion that some people have of “unfairness” in markets. In fact, that’s how we got here in the first place. Government intervened to correct what was seen as “unfairness” in the housing market by guaranteeing risky loans, which set off a housing bubble that left the economic system in ruins. We got Obamanomics as the end result of that, which is all about “fairness,” and which has utterly failed to produce growth thanks to the arbitrary and punitive ways it treats investors.
We’re not seeing growth because of the hostile environment for investors, and a lack of consumer demand related to high unemployment. We could solve those tomorrow by reducing regulation (especially the arbitrary ObamaCare legislation that makes risk calculation nearly impossible), unfettering American energy exploration and extraction to create jobs and lower energy costs, and reform the tax system to put all investors on an even playing field and reduce the corporatism that drags down small-business creation and innovation. (AMEN.)
The Democrats folded and the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires were extended so the job creators would trickle down jobs on the millions of ordinary Americans seeking employment. The Democrats caved again and Weeper Boehner said he walked away with 98% of what he wanted on the debt ceiling deal. Just 14% of the public approve of the way Congress is performing. And then after the far right got their way our credit rating drops. John Chambers, the head of S&P, said one of the primary reasons for the downgrade was the political brinksmanship of those who would hold a gun to the nation’s head to get their way. Chambers said: “The kind of debate we’ve seen over the debt ceiling has made us think the United States is no longer in the top echelon on its political settings.” Perhaps looking at how we got from budget surpluses under Clinton to the first downgrade in the history of the nation just 10 years later rests at the feet of Barack Obama, but for those of us who don’t live in that delusional world we expect Congress to stop resting on the laurels of 14% approval and listen to the demand of the 85% who say they have to stop playing political games and compromise for the good of the country.
Absolutely great comment, Moe.
Cargo – You’re so prolific that you should consider starting your own blog.
Cargo,
Until you can understand that Republicans are complicit in this disaster, you don’t have a leg to stand on in my opinion. Good governance requires thoughtful well reasoned discourse, the Tea party has demonstrated none of those qualities.
Forgot to add: the only plan, with numbers, that had a $4 trillion dollar cut was the Tea Party Cut, Cap, and Balance plan.
So…if you blame the Tea Party for NOT voting for a plan, be aware that they had the ONLY plan.
President Obama may have, at one time, called for $4 trillion in spending cuts, along with high taxes, but no such plan was ever written down by any Obama supporter.
Talk is cheap. If its not in writing…it didn’t happen.
Cargo,
Not sure abou the quality of “hot air” but my suggeston is you read this article from the well recognized Wall Street Journal. Maybe this article will jog your memory.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461104576460003775319310.html
“President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner are moving toward a deficit-reduction deal that could cut as much as $3 trillion in spending and overhaul the tax code by the end of next year to raise up to $1 trillion, according to people familiar with the talks.
Until now, Republicans have shot down every proposal that involved higher taxes. But Democrats could be the major obstacle to this package because they worry that upfront spending cuts would be ironclad while any tax increases would be subject to later agreement.
It’s unclear where $3 trillion in spending would be cut. But among recently discussed ideas are an array of cuts to federal programs, raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67, and relying on a different formula that would slow cost-of-living increases to Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries.”
Cargo,
Boehner walked out when he was informed by the extremists in his party there would be NO tax revenue. It is not a fair negotiation when you have no communication with the other side. There are TWO parties in this country Cargo, TWO!
go Moe!
Moe,
Did you see this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-faa-shutdown-and-the-new-rules-of-washington/2011/08/04/gIQAJIUOvI_story.html?hpid=z4
This is a must read.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1
Brinkmanship–
Rep. Cleaver is correct.
And don’t be surprised if we are furious over this.
This may not be bad news for Obama, because ideologues such as Moe and Elena will push the narrative that it’s all the Tea Party’s fault.
The real failure here was the inability to make meaningful cuts of expensive social programs. The Dems had no stomach for that, because they never want to cut government programs and it may have placed the Stimulus and Obamacare in jeopardy. If social programs were on the table, then a revenue increase may even have been possible.
And this occurred on Obama’s Watch. I am still waiting to see some evidence of leadership rather than polarizing class warfare. When I hear him go on the offensive against successful people, any desire to cooperate completely evaporates.
@Kelly, the fact that you admit that your desire to cooperate has evaporated is a good place to start. I expect that most people want their own way but those to represent us, at least in the past, understand that the job is going to require some give and take and finding of common ground.
Which expensive social programs would you axe? Medicare? Social Security? Medicaid?
When thinking about revenue increase, it seems to me that the ceiling for FICA is rather arbitrary. There is a revenue that’s ceiling could inch up very gradually. That isn’t punishing success since we all get punished the same way.
Oh, Moe! You’re sooooo dreamy!
I think you are just jealous, Poke!
You wish YOU had said what Moe said.
and the discussion here points to the exact reason why the S&P cut the rating. They said, that there was plenty of blame to go around, and it is just not this administration, but the previous administration also. That the R’s will not look into any revenue changes (closing loopholes) is short sighted.
Obama enacted the deficit reduction commission – a bi-partisan group – Congress did not follow through.
Obama asked for more discussion – Biden lead the deficit reduction talks, and the R’s initially did not want to attend, but then sent Cantor and Kyl, who both left the table.
Obama brought Boehner to the Whitehouse, where Boener eventually left the table.
And, the S&P looks at the great deal that was eventually made – and it kicks the can down the road – they did not cut spending – they went for a commission that will find the spending cuts…..were we not here with the Deficit Reduction commission, or is it that the commission was Obama’s idea, and it would not be right to give him a win of any sort, as McConnel has stated that job one was to make sure Obama was a one term President.
So, do not say that Obama did not try anything here – it is hard to lead when you have a group that do not want to be led. When you have a group that will not compromise – are you telling me that there is no place at all for tax reform where it will bring in some money – a major reason for our deficit is not the spending, but the reduced revenue into the Fed’s coffers.
Re the debt ceiling – the S&P noted that it had been raised 70 or so times before, but this time, it was made into such a big issue, waiting for the very last day, creating cash flow problems, that the S&P is fearful that we have a dysfunctional government.
Blame Obama – and yes, there is blame to be assigned to him – but he is trying. He just did not vote in all the entitlements that he is getting the blame for. The R’s voted in Part D with no funding. Created two wars, and borrowed the money. Reduced taxes when there was already a deficit. And the R’s were part of the lending party (mortgage crisis) and did nothing to reign it in. Even Greenspan notes his own failure (and also notes that we should go back to Clinton era tax rates). There is no credible measure to show that the Bush tax cuts have actually created any jobs, other than a bubble.
Yes, plenty of blame to go around.
cargo – Yes, if the debt ceiling was not raised, the US would have defaulted. The US owes money, and the obligations are not just on the public debt – if the US did not pay the bills – that would be an insolvency. SO, if the Fed workers went a week with no pay, it could be considered an unpaid obligation, and the downgrade would have been harsher and quicker.
Actually, there is absolutely enough blame to go around. And the fact that everyone is focused on the blame and not the problem is exactly why our credit rating got cut.
Oh, come on, let me have a chuckle at you lefty-ladies swooning over Moe. It’s funny! I’m reminded of the old cartoons where the pencil-thin Bing Crosby Rooster would croon into a huge microphone and all the hens would faint. It’s even funnier considering how how incredibly off everything he says really is. But I’ve said for a couple of years now, Obama could walk out in front of the press, drop a load in front of the teleprompter of power, and the left would stand around and golf-clap, uttering “Brilliant, simply Brilliant!”.
Could be we like what he says. He is also incredibly funny. Go Moe…Go Moe…Goe Mo….ooooops.
Slow – yes, I agree with you – the R’s wanted to politicize this whole process – even wanting to have a short term agreement, so that they could revisit the debt ceiling increase again, before the election.
@Morris Davis
I have one….but we don’t have the great comments that inspire me. I do best when answering others…..What can I say? I find inspiration here.
Slowpoke,
I know many demorcrats and republicans willing to make the cuts and reforms needed. I also know some, on both sides, who refuse to acknowledge that compromise is the only way out of this mess. I am more than willing to accept that entitlements need reform, are you as willing to accept that Bush tax cuts and tax loopholes must be dealt with?
Pat,
Thank you for your very thoughtful and reality based synopsis of the past events.
🙂
Kelly,
Did you read the article from MarketWatch I posted a few comments up on this thread?
I think this is the first time I’ve ever sparked mouse-envy. This must be the kind of thing Sarah Palin experiences regularly … if only I had some of those $2.69 Slim Jims to munch on while enjoying the view of Russia (or is that Bull Run Mountain?) from my back porch.
Here’s the S&P report on the downgrade: http://bit.ly/pfrs1x
I think the layman’s translation of this paragraph — “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently” — is “Congress is a bunch of dysfunctional a-holes.”
“I expect that most people want their own way but those to represent us, at least in the past, understand that the job is going to require some give and take and finding of common ground.”
That’s difficult, thanks to the way our supposed leadership incites bitter class warfare. It’s a hellbent race to the bottom–He’s got more than me, so take from him! If I’m miserable, she has to be MORE miserable! So let’s all be miserable and poor together!
@Emma, I am sorry but I have never seen that out of this administration. I think that there is bitter class warfare within this country but I don’t see it as a trickle down.
I see it as I drive through Manassas and PWC and when I read blogs. Actually I am not even sure I would say it is over class. I think it is over ideology and I am think what is in that ideology varies a great deal from person to person.
I know that I feel that many conservatives and especially the tea party would take away everything I have. I was talking to a someone from this blog yesterday who agrees. We are all baby boomers and we all agreed that we played by the rules we were given over the years and yet someone wants to come along and yank the rug out from under us.
Feeling like someone or some group wants to take away everything you have spent your life amassing really creates hate. That includes the crappy way I hear my career discussed. I was worthless, needed regulation, should have had no job security or a pension, lived off the ‘govt. teat’ which I just think is a vulgar expression to start with, and what I have managed to aquire I shouldn’t have.
Those are the messages I have gotten loudly and clearly, especially in the past year. I am not whining about it but don’t anyone ask me why I am fighting back. Every day I wake up and resist the urge not to come on here and say F-YOU when I see something derisive written about one of the attributes I would use to describe myself.
The new lower class now appear to be the public employee, regardless of what his or her job many be in the public arena.
I’ll go you one better. I say do away with the IRS and do a flat tax. Everybody pays, no loopholes, no subsidies, no special deductions for the rich. But you are quite right, there are two sides who refuse to budge. I love division! If we’re being honest with one another…..we probably don’t deserve a AAA rating….at least not right now.
No wonder congress acts like it does with the finger pointing nonsense. Sadly, they just might be a reflection of the population. When did we all get so stupid and stop using our brains?
M-h, I agree with much you’ve said about the attacks on baby boomers and public employees. We’ve spent 30 years or so planning for retirement based on the rules that were in place. We’ve amassed stocks, pensions, social security, supplemental retirement funds, houses, other retirement accounts in an effort to plan for retirement. Some of these investments (real estate and stocks in particular) were subject to wild market fluctuations recently and put a big dent in many people’s plans.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of the bitching has come from forty year olds who think that social contracts mean nothing and it’s every man or woman for himself/herself. It’s an age when people are often at the top of their game, have been independent of their parents for a couple decades, have started a family and bought a house, and think that nothing’s going to bite them in the ass. Many of them have bought into Rand’s thinking or the mantra of private retirement accounts that will solve their problems while keeping the great unwashed from touching any of their funds. Too many bought into an overextended and underfunded lifestyle as well and are now pissed. We’re the scapegoats . We’re the targets because it seems as though we’re now the great unwashed who are expecting a return on the money we invested in our retirement (social security & pensions). If younger people are angry about the lack of pensions at their places of employment, the anger should be directed at those employers.
Time has a way of kicking people in the ass and wallet as many people find out. Physical limitations, death of spouses, divorce, college tuition, car wrecks, housing bubbles, and an assortment of surprises await.
Might you be suggesting that some of those 40-somethings might be in for a few shockeroos?
I totally agree with your assessment, Censored and I feel confident you recognized our conversation of Friday.
Yes, we are the scapegoats. Funny how 40 somethings think they are immortal and invincible. Add a decade or two and reality sets in a little better, especially when the rules change midstream on some of them.
We are fortunate because no matter how they try to change the rules, the baby boomers have the numbers. It probably isn’t smart to try to marginalize baby boomers. I love how so many hate AARP also.
I wonder if Obama got his application in the mail?
Funny, I was thinking ‘great unwashed’ also. Must be a boomer thing.
Great points.
It’s been a slow process. It began in the 1930s, and it has been slowly accelerating since. For lack of a better word, we call it “progressivism”.
The Social Programs – addressing the discretionary spending ones here. All finger pointing aside, those who wanted cuts will get them with that 10 year cap built in the legislation. I’ll focus on the are I know best – Aging & Disability Services. So borrowing from a classic Clint Eastwood spaghetti western:
The Good: at the moment Medicaid Home & Community-Services, Medicare and Social Security were spared as that first $900billion will come out of discretionary. If automatic sequestration occurs, again, most are spared including some assisting the lowest of income.
The Bad: Discretionary Programs such as those under the Older Americans Act (to include Meals on Wheels, Adult Day Care) will have funds frozen for 10 years. No taking in account the aging population growth (by 2030 the Boomer Age Wave hits in full), human need or other factors that increase demand for programs and services. Discretionary programs may only receive a small cut in the first round, but are not protected in the second.
The Ugly: The deal reduces the current amount of funds available for community-level programs. For the Older Americans, this means less funding available for home care, Meals on Wheels, heating/cooling assistance and other community programs. If Medicaid cuts come to fruition, less Medicaid Waivers to remain at home with support services, and more institutionalization. Back to warehousing we go! Of course, if Medicaid cuts go deeper, even the Nursing Home being an option will not be available.
So whether the cuts are done now, a year from now as part of the election circus, or with the automatic sequestration, the circus in DC wins, the vunerable loose. And further on the issue of discretionary is the Veterans Administration.
Unless the Veteran is Priority One, Two or THree out of the Eight eligibility levels for care, the V.A. can take the budget hit for lower priorities as that is considered discretionary.
Slow,
Are you planning on taking in alot othe elderly who will be screwed by these cuts? Guess what, these cuts are tax increases for those of us not independently wealthy. I imagine, that includes you too. What will people do with their aging parent who need assistance? What will people do as they age who DON’T have family to help them? What kind of society does not care appropriately for their elderly?
@Elena, I suspect local and state taxes will go up to take up the slack. There is no free lunch.
Slow,
What part of progressive do you despise the most? Minimum wage, workers rights, medicare, the EPA, NASA, the list goes on. Maybe it would be easier to ask what you believe the role of government should be in a modern cvilized society?
Well, Gee, I don’t know! I’d have to go with the EPA. Which part do you like best? The high taxes, high unemployment, rapidly climbing debt, dependence on government handouts, government inefficiency, having more kids for extra welfare? I know it’s a list of tasty delights for a progressive, but there’s got to be one that gets you all tingly inside more than the others!
Oh Gawd, the “elderly eating dog food” thing. Puh-lease! The answer to your last question?…..a Society that leaves it up to Government to do it.
You really don’t get it slowpoke. You really are far too removed to get it. There are plenty of older people who probably do eat dog food or pretty close to it.
How about someone trying to live on 1200 a month? Some don’t get that much. Many of them are women who stayed at home and raised their families and never worked. They now get their husband’s social security. The ones that have some age on them might not even be getting that much money a month.
This is before they pay rent, buy food, or pay for health care. Medicare B starts off taking about $100 out of that ss check. then there is C and D for meds. Medicine often can run 1200-2000 a month.
Want to suck in those superior words about eating dog food in your old age? Should you fall on hard times, you might find yourself being king of the gravy train special.
So the Dems have come up with their answer to the problem…..raise taxes!!! Didn’t see THAT coming, did you?
Why does a rise in taxes or shoring up loopholes bother you so much? You have 2 little pokies. It will cost $11k a year to educate each of them, not even allowing for that fee to go up. $22k a year times 13, just for a public education. That’s almost $300,000 in education costs. I bet you don’t even pay close to $22k a year in local taxes. I know I sure don’t.
@Juturna
I would not say Congress is an accurate reflection of the American population. According to the George Mason University Election Project, in the 2010 mid-term election 41% of the voting eligible population (only counts those that are of voting age and not disqualified from voting) cast a vote. Virginia was below the national average with 38% of the voting eligible population casting votes. There is clearly a large measure of voter apathy, but there is also a large measure of voter disgust with a process they consider corrupt and out of touch with their interests. Many look at the choice of candidates as a choice between (a) projectile vomiting and (b) explosive diarrhea and won’t go out of their way to select between two undesirable choices. So we end up with a minority of Congress elected by a minority of the population looking after the interests of an even smaller minority who paid large chunks of the $4B spent on the mid-term elections.
@Elena
Yes, Elena. I read Stockman’s comments. Unfortunately he is wrong because he misses the big picture.
The big picture is this: the debt is the manifestation of an unresolved conflict between two philosophies of government.
Conservatives want small government of limited scope. In line with that, they want taxes low to encourage capitalism and keep government in check. Low taxes are politically popular so the conservatives generally prevail on this. They would also like to reduce government spending to balance the budget, but they are generally blocked by Dems and liberal Republicans.
Liberals want big government with cradle-to-grave care for anyone that needs it. People generally want “free” benefits, so these programs are politically popular and the liberals are often successful at creating new programs. For the most part Libs want the budget balanced (except during economic downturns), but they want to do it through taxation and redistribution of wealth. Conservatives are able to block them on this.
The result is a debt that has been growing for 40 years. But now the party is over, because the deficit is so large, it matches the GDP. Cuts have to be made due to a decline in birth rates so that population growth no longer supports the welfare state.
And moderates want medium sized governments with a balance between helping citizens and regulation.
Think of what happened on the great plains when the railroads went through without regulation.
The buffalo herds were decimated within 2 years and the bison were near extinction. The flip side is farmers without water access because of over regulation because of some small fish habitat.
Debt has always been around. Check things out after WWII. Debt has always been high during and after wars and depressions/recessions. That statement doesn’t mean ignore it. It means to put it in perspective. It also means there are times when we must increase revenue.
M-h, a lot of us know what being forty was all about. We have the advantage of having lived a couple decades beyond that as well. I could almost lift my weight in fire clay( 100 pound bag) when I was twenty. I could carry two bags of soil amendments ( 40 pounds each) at forty. And now I look for the wheelbarrow to move a bag of mulch. Lol! That means I have to pay a painter to paint the exterior of my house now. The little things add up. So far I’ve been able to avoid the dog food thing, but many people have not been so fortunate.
Thanks for mentioning the school costs. We haven’t had kiddos in the schools, but I don’t regret having public schools. Maybe a few people shouldn’t regret our having retirement accounts. Oh, no…Rand wouldn’t approve. It’s not self serving enough!
From Bloomberg Slow, you may want to actually read articles that not right wing propoganda.
From the Daily Beast:
.
@Elena
No Elena, I’m not saying Bloomberg is a left-wing rag. I will say that Michael Bloomberg is a left-winger, if that makes things better. I have said before, I’m all for tax reform, but not “tax-the-middle-class” which is what it ALWAYS winds up being. Again, eliminate all loopholes, subsidies, and the IRS. I want real tax reform (something we’ll never see), not higher taxes for the middle class.
now we are talking Slow, this is a start 🙂
Ditto Slow, ditto. Well said.
So now that we’ve all played the blame game Dems, Repubs, Teabaggers…. THAT is now moot.
What does a credit downgrade mean for us on an individual level?
Expect fuel prices to climb sky high come this fall. Oil is traded in US dollars and sold on the world market at market prices. The US borrows billions to import said oil. NOw that our credit rating in Asia and S&P is downgraded expect increased fuel prices accross the board. And I’m not just talking about filling your tank to drive to wally world to purchase that plastic dogshit made in China Americans adore en masse. Fuel prices affect FOOD prices. Fuel prices affect nearly every sellable product out there – from production to transportation.
Things are going to get a lot harder for Americans, and our economy is going to drop even further – for our economy is so heavily dependent on black gold to make “growth” if we don’t have enough we do not grow. The other AAA nations are now in a position to grow further for they can borrow the $$$$ more easily at less of a cost.
So I hope you all have insulated homes and a stocked pantry. It’s gonna be a bumpy road kids!
……
And in case any moron wishes to chant the “drill here, drill now, pay less” mouthbreather’s ephitet – oil is sold on the global marketplace at global market prices. Oil extracted in the US is not handed to the people, but SOLD abroad and RE-IMPORTED to us. With the state of our economy, we will be happy to sell it to the highest bidder – and that ain’t us anymore, folks. That – and the fact that the “easy cheap” sources of oil are no longer producing at all or are in serious states of decline.
“And as things fell apart – nobody paid much attention!” – Talking Heads – Nothing But Flowers
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
It sounds like common ground at last. I don’t want taxes raised on the middle class either.
However, I am enough of a realist to know if they don’t get me one place, they will get me another place.
S&P is full of BS. If the U.S. is no longer AAA then no one, and I do mean no one, should be rated AAA.
So Cato, will we dodge the bullet? Sometimes the markets give the finger rise in spite of everything.
Futures indicate a 2% gap down, but interestingly enough didn’t go much beyond Friday’s low. That means there’s a pretty strong bid at 1165, and that’s the level to watch. Consolidation above 1175 gives the bulls room to run.
Well, lets see what happens now.
Is Congress going to Man Up and say that they have a job to do, and go do it, or are they going to continue to be a non functioning partisan bunch – as they have shown today on all the talk shows.
Congress has been given the message that their antics are not going to be tolerated – are they listening?