Federal Reserve, the Economy and CD Rate Forecast - Aug 2, 2022

Future Fed summaries will no longer be published every Tuesday. Instead, the summaries will be published around once a month, typically one or two weeks before Fed meetings and after any important news on monetary policy. I’ll put more emphasis on the Wednesday summaries that cover rate changes and top rates of CDs and liquid accounts.
The Fed increased the target federal funds rate by 75 bps last week. It’s the second straight 75-bp rate hike, and it raises the target to the same level as the peak of the 2015-2018 rate hiking cycle. The Fed continues to emphasize the importance of bringing down inflation:
The Committee is strongly committed to returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.
The difficult question is how serious is the Fed on bringing down inflation. If the U.S. economy has a major slowdown, will they reverse course like they’ve done in the past? Or will they keep hiking rates until inflation has fallen for several months?
Based on how much the 5- and 10-year Treasury yields have fallen in the last month, it appears that the market thinks the Fed will behave like it has in the recent past and reverse course in less than a year.
As described in this Bloomberg piece, recent remarks by Fed officials suggest that the Fed won’t be so quick to change course:
Federal Reserve officials effectively pushed back against a narrative in financial markets over the past week that policy makers are envisioning a pivot away from tightening amid evidence of a turn in the economy.
July CPI numbers are scheduled to be released next week on August 10th, and the August CPI numbers are scheduled to be released on September 13th. If we get more upside surprises with these numbers, the Fed could hike 75 bps again if it is truly serious about bringing down inflation.
Treasury Yields
After one week, Treasury yields didn’t change much. Short-duration yields (two years and under) generally had small gains, while long-duration yields (over two years) had small declines. The 1-month yield had the largest gain, rising 5 bps to 2.22%, while the 10-year yield had the largest decline, falling 6 bps to 2.75%.
Except for the 20-year yield, the 1-year T-bill has the highest yield at 3.09%. This is 34 bps higher than the 10-year yield (2.75%).
The yield curve has become more inverted, with the 6-month yield (3.00%) now exceeding the 10-year yield (2.75%) by 25 bps. The 10y-2y spread (the difference between the 10-year and 2-year yield) widened a bit from last week. The spread is now -31 bps, up from -20 bps last week.
The 10y-3m spread (the difference between the 10-year and 3-month yield) is still positive, but it continues to shrink. Last week, the 10y-3m spread fell to 26 bps. Yesterday, it had fallen to only 4 bps. Today, the 10-year yield increased 15 bps, which widened the spread from 4 bps to 19 bps. Some economists put more weight on the 10y-3m spread than the 10y-2y spread in predicting future recessions.
The large rise of T-bill yields does provide a good opportunity for savers to boost their cash yield. While the yields of Treasury notes (durations from two to ten years) no longer offer a yield advantage over top yields of direct CDs, Treasury bills (durations of one year and under) do offer a yield advantage over short-term CDs and online savings accounts. At the market close today, the 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-month T-bill yields were 2.22%, 2.56%, 3.00% and 3.09%. These are higher than any short-term direct CD rates with comparable maturities.
Savers who are considering buying T-bills and would like to learn how best to buy them, this TipsWatch post offers many useful details on buying them at TreasuryDirect, and this The Finance Buff post offers many useful details on buying them from Fidelity, Vanguard or from Charles Schwab.
Odds of Fed Rate Hikes
The odds that the Fed will do another 75-bp rate hike at its September 20-21 meeting have fallen. The odds are now 41.5%, down from 49.4% last week. The highest odds are for a 50-bp rate hike.
There are three remaining Fed meetings this year, and the odds suggest the rate path will be 50-25-25 for a total increase of 100 bps. That would move the target fed funds rate from today’s level (2.25%-2.50%) to 3.25%-3.50% by the Fed’s December 13-14 meeting.
The odds that the Fed will hike by at least 100 bps by December have fallen slightly from last week, down from 82.1% to 79.0%. Larger rate hikes at the next three meetings appear unlikely. The odds that the Fed will hike by at least 125 bps by December are only 34.1%. That could be a path of 50-50-25. The odds that the Fed will hike by at least 150 bps (possible path of 75-50-25) are only 5.3%.
By the July 26, 2023 meeting, odds have increased slightly that there will be at least one rate cut. If a recession hits hard, the Fed will be under pressure to cut rates. The market doubts that the Fed has enough determination to squelch inflation with a long period of high rates.The odds suggest that either inflation falls quickly in the next year or the Fed returns to its pre-pandemic inflation mindset.
These federal funds rate odds are based on the CME FedWatch tool. The CME FedWatch tool lists implied probabilities of future target federal funds rate hikes based on the Fed Funds futures market.
The following numbers are based on Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates and the CME Group FedWatch.
Treasury Yields (Close of 8/2/2022):
- 1-month: 2.22%, up 5 bps from 2.17% last week (0.05% a year ago)
- 3-month: 2.56%, up 1 bp from 2.55% last week (0.05% a year ago)
- 6-month: 3.00% down 1 bp from 3.01% last week (0.06% a year ago)
- 1-year: 3.09%, up 3 bps from 3.06% last week (0.07% a year ago)
- 2--year: 3.06%, up 4 bps from 3.02% last week (0.17% a year ago)
- 5--year: 2.85%, down 4 bps from 2.89% last week (0.66% a year ago)
- 10-year: 2.75%, down 6 bps from 2.81% last week (1.20% a year ago)
- 30-year: 3.00%, down 3 bps from 3.03% last week (1.86% a year ago)
Fed funds futures' probabilities of future rate changes by (@ 8:00pm EDT 8/2/2022)
Sep 21, 2022 - up by at least:
- 50 bps: 100.0%, same as last week
- 75 bps: 41.5%, down from 49.4% last week
- 100 bps: 0.0%, down from 8.2% last week
Nov 2, 2022 - up by at least:
- 75 bps: 100.0%, same as last week
- 100 bps: 55.9%, down from 62.6% last week
- 125 bps: 10.2%, down from 18.9% last week
Dec 14, 2022 - up by at least:
- 75 bps: 100.0%, same as last week
- 100 bps: 79.0%, down from 82.1% last week
- 125 bps: 34.1%, down from 42.2% last week
- 150 bps: 5.3%, down from 11.3% last week
- 175 bps: 0.0%, down from 1.2% last week
Jul 26, 2023 - up by at least:
- 50 bps: 94.8%, up from 90.4% last week
- 75 bps: 76.3%, up from 70.3% last week
- 100 bps: 44.3%, up from 41.0% last week
- 125 bps: 16.1%, up from 16.0% last week
Deposit Rate Changes and Forecasts
CD Rates
This was yet another CD summary with essentially no new highs for CD rates. Technically, there is a new high. Two online banks (Bread Financial and CFG Bank) are offering 5-year CDs with a 3.65% APY, which is one basis point higher than the previous high (3.64% APY for a 5-year CD at Lafayette FCU.)
Even with last week’s 75-bp Fed rate hike, banks and credit unions don’t seem to be in any rush on pushing long-term CD rates to new heights.
On the other hand, banks and credit unions are hiking rates to new highs on short- and mid-term CDs. We now have 3.55% APY on a 2-year CD, 3.20% APY on an 18-month CD, 3.00% APY on a 1-year CD, and 2.80% APY on a 9-month CD.
CD rate increases appear to be starting to mimic what we’ve been seeing in Treasury yields in which shorter-duration yields are catching up to longer-duration yields. If this trend continues, an inverted yield curve for CDs may occur like what we are seeing now with Treasury yields.
This environment does make it difficult for CD investors who are trying to figure out the best time to lock into long-term CDs. With the past Fed rate hikes and the future ones that appear likely, it sure seems like there will be new long-term CD rate highs (perhaps 4%+). However, top long-term CD rates have been pretty much static for a while, and based on long-duration Treasury yields, there’s no guarantee that we’ll see 4% CDs.
I’ll discuss some strategies of dealing with this rate environment in my CD rate summary on Wednesday.
The trend of short-term CD rates catching up to long-term CD rates can be seen in how the average online CD rates increased in July. The 1-year online CD yield average increased 43.4 bps to 2.331%. The 5-year online CD yield average had a smaller increase in July, rising only 21.4 bps to 3.100%. This is similar to what we saw in June.
These averages are based on the 5-year Online CD Index and 1-year Online CD Index which are the average yields of ten online CD accounts from well-established online banks. Note, the charts haven’t yet been updated for August.
Since so many banks and credit unions are raising CD rates, I excluded several of them that increased rates to mediocre levels. I’m focusing mostly on rate increases that are noteworthy. Also, I’m only including one to three CD rate changes per institution to avoid an overload of data. All percentages listed below are APYs.
- Bread Financial (5y 3.35% → 3.65%, 2y 3.00% → 3.50%, 1y 2.50% → 3.00%)
- CFG Bank (5y 3.50% → 3.65%, 18m 2.85% → 3.20%, 1y 2.55% → 2.75%)
- My eBanc (3y 2.74% → 3.51%, 2y 2.43% → 3.20%, 1y 2.02% → 2.79%)
- Credit One Bank NA (5y 3.30% → 3.35%, 13m New 2.75%)
- Navy FCU (33m Spc w/add-on 2.60% → 3.30%, 1y 1.65% → 2.15%)
- USALLIANCE Financial (3y 2.25% → 3.25%, 2y 2.50% → 3.25%)
- Alliant CU (5y 3.05% → 3.25%, 1y 2.10% → 2.40%)
- Citizens Access (5y 3.00% → 3.25%, 1y 1.90% → 2.25%)
- PenFed CU (5y 3.00% → 3.20%, 2y 2.50% → 3.00%, 1y 2.00% → 2.30%)
- Capital One (5y 2.90% → 3.20%, 1y 1.90% → 2.25%)
- CD Bank (5y 2.87% → 3.15%, 2y 2.54% → 3.00%, 1y 2.06% → 2.55%)
- Hughes FCU (3y Jbo 2.22% → 3.15%, 1y 1.26% → 1.61%)
- Popular Direct (4y 3.05% → 3.15%, 1y 2.25% → 2.35%)
- NASA FCU (49m Spc 3.00% → 3.15%, 15m Spc 2.75% → 3.00%, 9m 2.50% → 2.80%)
- Sallie Mae Bank (5y 2.80% → 3.05%, 2y 2.50% → 3.00%, 1y 2.00% → 2.50%)
- First Internet Bank (4y 2.94% → 3.04%, 18m 2.38% → 2.63%, 1y 2.07% → 2.58%)
- ConnectOne Bank (23m 1.90% → 3.00%, 13m 2.25% → 2.65%)
- Service CU (2y 2.05% → 3.00%, 18m 1.80% → 2.25%)
- Abound CU (26m Spc 2.75% → 3.00%)
- NexBank (5y 2.25% → 3.00%, 1y promo Jbo 2.20% → 2.85%)
- Bank5 Connect (21m 1.50% → 2.95%)
- Andrews FCU (5y Jbo 2.15% → 2.90%, 1y Jbo 1.85% → 2.05%)
- State Bank of Texas (1y 2.50% → 2.75%)
- Mountain America CU (5y AO 1.75% → 2.75%, 2y AO 1.00% → 2.75%)
- Merrick Bank (3y 3.00% → 2.75%, 2y 2.95% → 3.00%, 18m 2.75% → 2.90%)
- Luana Savings Bank (18m 2.69% → 2.74%, 1y 2.53% → 2.58%, 6m Spc 2.28% → 2.43%)
- CommunityWide FCU (5y 2.60% → 2.70%, 1y 2.00% → 2.20%, 6m 1.60% → 2.00%)
- Paramount Bank (25m Spc 1.40% → 2.70%, 19m Spc 1.00% → 2.55%, 13m Spc 0.70% → 2.00%)
- Live Oak Bank (5y 3.00% → 2.70%, 2.20% → 2.50%)
- Rising Bank (18m Rsg 2.25% → 2.50%, 1y 2.15% → 2.30%)
- Ally Bank (5y 20m Sel 2.40% → 2.50%, 13m Sel 2.00% → 2.25%)
- Sallie Mae Bank via SaveBetter (14m NP 2.20% → 2.50%, 10m NP 1.85% → 2.00%)
- CIT Bank (13m 0.30% → 2.10%, 11m NP 1.85% → 2.00%)
- Marcus by Goldman Sachs (13m NP 1.25% → 1.55%)
I’ll have more discussion of the rate changes in my CD rate summary on Wednesday.
Savings, Checking and Money Market Rates
More online savings account yields are rising above 2.00%. Two weeks ago, CFG Bank became the rate leader when its High Yield Money Market yield increased to 2.05%. CFG Bank has again increased its money market yield to rate leader status. The money market yield is now 2.30%.
In December 2018 and early 2019, the federal funds rate was at today’s level (2.25%-2.50%), and we were seeing rate leaders with yields around 2.50%. Unlike 2019, additional Fed rate hikes look very likely. Thus, I expect top online savings account yields to soon surpass 2.50%.
In early 2019, the online savings account yields from the major online banks reached a peak of 2.25% to 2.35%. Today, the major online banks are lagging behind. Today’s online savings account yields from the major online banks range from 1.25% to 1.65%. I expect weekly rate hikes from most of the major online banks that will move this range close to the early 2019 range.
You can also see the lagging of rates of the major online banks in the average online savings account yield. In July, the average yield gained 32.0 bps, which is slightly larger than the June yield gain of 31.5 bps. The average online savings account yield as of August 1st is 1.361%. In 2019, the average online savings account yield peaked at 2.227% from March 1st to June 1st. With more Fed rate hikes appearing to be very likely, we should see the average online savings account yield surpass the 2019 peak sometime this year.
Our Online Savings Account Index tracks the average rate of ten well-established online savings accounts.
Below are examples of important savings, checking and money market rate changes in the last week. As is the case with the CD rates, I’ve included only rate changes from the online savings accounts that DA readers would be most interested in. All percentages listed below are APYs.
- CFG Bank High Yield MM (2.05% → 2.30%)
- My Banking Direct High Yield Savings (2.02% → 2.20%)
- Fitness Bank Savings (12.5k+ steps 1.35% → 2.20%)
- Bread Financial High-Yield Savings (1.65% → 2.15%)
- BrioDirect High-Yield Savings (1.80% → 2.15%)
- Ivy Bank High-Yield Savings (1.90% → 2.15%)
- LendingClub High-Yield Savings (1.52% → 2.07%)
- ETrade Bank via Morgan Stanley Premium Savings (1.40% → 2.00%)
- TAB Bank High Yield Savings (1.68% → 1.92%)
- CIT Bank Savings Connect (1.65% → 1.90%)
- Vio Bank Cornerstone MM (1.65% → 1.85%)
- State Bank of Texas Jumbo MM (1.50% → 1.85%)
- Luana Savings Bank MM (1.76% → 1.81%)
- Langley FCU Platinum MM Savings (1.50% → 1.75%)
- Northpointe Bank Ultimate Savings/MM (1.25% → 1.75%)
- Barclays Online Savings (1.40% → 1.65%)
- Salem Five Direct eOne Savings (1.01% → 1.65%)
- Paramount Bank Interest Checking (1.25% → 1.55%)
- SFGI Direct Savings (1.21% → 1.51%)
- TotalDirectBank MMDA (1.20% → 1.50%)
- Marcus by Goldman Sachs Online Savings (1.20% → 1.50%)
- Ally Bank Online Savings (1.25% → 1.40%)
- Alliant CU High-Rate Savings (1.20% → 1.40%)
- SmartyPig Savings (1.10% → 1.40%)
- TIAA Bank Basic Savings (1.00% → 1.30%)
- First Internet Bank Money Market Savings (1.16% → 1.31%)
- Capital One 360 Performance Savings (1.20% → 1.30%)
- American Express High Yield Savings (1.15% → 1.25%)
- PenFed CU Premium Online Savings (1.00% → 1.20%)
Economic and Deposit Rate Scenarios for 2022 and 2023
Based on the June Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) dot plot which shows the anticipated federal funds rates of each of the 18 FOMC members, I can summarize these into two scenarios of how rates evolve through 2023.
Note, the dot plot includes rates for 2024 and for the “longer run.” For my scenarios, I’ve decided to focus just on 2022 and 2023. In my opinion, there’s too much uncertainty for 2024 and future years.
My first scenario is based on the median forecasts of 12 of the FOMC members who were on the low side of rate hike forecasts. The second scenario is based on the median forecasts of five of the FOMC members who were on the high side of rate hike forecasts. The range of possible net rate hikes through 2023 is 325 to 425 bps. The low end of this range would result in a federal funds rate target of 325-350 bps by the end of 2023. The high end of this range would result in a federal funds rate target of 425-450 bps.
My two Fed rate hike scenarios through 2023:
- 2022: 300-325 bps of rate hikes, 2023 25-50 bps of rate hikes (2yr gain of 325-375 bps)
- 2022: 350-375 bps of rate hikes, 2023 25-50 bps of rate hikes (2yr gain of 375-425 bps)
These rate hike forecasts are about 75 bps higher than the March forecasts. It’s yet another upward revision of the federal funds rate. For the last year, there have been upward revisions of the federal funds rate forecasts for each new SEP.
How will online savings account rates increase?
Based on the 2015-2018 Fed rate hiking cycle, the top online savings account rates should remain near the upper range of the target federal funds rate. With the current upper range of 1.75%, we already have an online savings account with a rate that’s close (1.65% APY at First Foundation Bank).
Average savings account yields will likely be 25-50 bps lower. So by the end of July, we should see the major online savings accounts with rates in the range of 1.25% to 1.50%. With the Fed hiking rates much faster than the 2015-2018 rate hiking cycle, online banks may be slower in hiking.
How will online CD rates increase?
This year, online CD rates have risen much faster than online savings account rates. The opposite will likely occur as the Fed transitions from rate hikes to rate cuts. Online CD rates will likely fall before online savings account rates.
Online CD rates have lagged Treasury yields as rates have risen. When Treasury yields start declining, online CD yields will likely follow with some lag. That may give savers time to lock in CDs with high rates, at least high relative to today.
It’s wise to remember that no one can predict future interest rates. So if you want to keep things simple, a CD ladder of long-term CDs is always a useful strategy for your safe money. If you’re worried about being locked into a low-rate CD if rates start rising, choose long-term CDs with early withdrawal penalties of no more than six months of interest.
CD Rate Trends
The above graph shows the rate trends of the average CD rates. These average rates are based on all the rate data that we have collected over the years. They include rates from both brick-and-mortar banks and credit unions, in addition to online banks. Since brick-and-mortar banks and credit unions greatly outnumber online banks, these averages can be considered brick-and-mortar bank averages.
This is an interactive graph. You can choose the term of the CDs (from 3 months to 5 years) and the look-back period (from 3 months to 5 years).
As you can see in the graph, average CD rates for all terms plunged in 2020. Rates fell at a slower pace in 2021. For most terms, CD rates bottomed out at the end of 2021. The 3- and 6-month CD rates bottomed out in January or February of 2022. Rates are now rising for all maturities. Even though rates are rising, they aren’t rising as fast as online CD rates.
Sorry you're not continuing with the weekly schedule, but understand your reasoning and look forward to the expanded version of your Wednesday publication. Many thanks for all you do. I sincerely hope that this week's comments will be respectful and on point. You deserve at least that much from your loyal readers.
That would be typical, I suppose, and characteristically gutless.
So with that scenario, a possible strategy would be to wait until June of 2023 timeframe and lock in 5 year or longer CD's then, when rates peak. In the mean time - no penalty CD's or brokerage CD's could fill the 10 month gap. If Ken's June 2023 (or anywhere near it) start of rate cuts holds true - investing now in 3 year or 4 year CD's would likely have them maturing at the bottom of the next cycle, when those funds become available in 2025 or 2026 for re-investment - CD's may be back down to 1%. On the other hand - Waiting for June 2023 timeframe to lock in 5 year CD's would hopefully lock in the top rates until 2028. Just a thought.
Have you seen how many sites that used to have a comment section have ended them?
a.k.a. Mob Rule
He who screams the loudest, creates the most chaos and amasses the biggest mob determines what is allowed to be heard and not allowed to be heard by everyone else.
Reminds me of how dictators took control of communist China, Russia or Nazi Germany.
This will not prevail. If the Democrats continue to throw in with the mob and continue on this course, they will be defeated.
think #80 first paragraph fits you well
:(
It's..
Sieg heil!
Only it wasn't a spontaneous event.
It was planned beforehand.
And, the speeches given were an incitement to riot.
That's not a hypothetical event.
That actually HAPPENED.
So, STFU!
The last inflation measure was 9.1%, and the labor market is still hotter than hot (unemployment 3.6%). Nothing whatsoever has materially changed in that regard, and yet apparently there’s a bandwagon filling up with pundits believing the Fed will call off its inflation fight barely after just beginning. This is insanity. It’s going to take many months to begin moving these numbers in consistent fashion, let alone establish any stability, and even should that happen in the next year you don’t immediately begin to wreck the handiwork
by reversing what you’ve so painstakingly managed to achieve. So many here are no more than meekly parroting mere market fantasies, with nothing even on the horizon that would justify any such expectation. Then to think some here are acting in light of their delusions, - it makes me shake my head. I mean, think independently everyone, restrain your suggestibility and anxieties, and evaluate the scene with some coolness and objectivity, without which you’ll have only yourselves to blame for the regretful deposit choices likely to result.
https://www.forexlive.com/centralbank/uber-fed-dove-kashkari-sounds-hawkish-we-are-a-long-way-away-from-achieving-2-inflation-20220731/
I agree a reset is in order, and wish Ken would occupy this space with his own weekly editorials in which he analyzes the goings on in rather free form fashion and then articulates where he himself believes things seem heading, and suggests to depositors recommendable responses to that trajectory. In other words less data and raw information (which he can use the other weekly column exclusively for), and more his own reflections and judgments as springboard for participant rejoinders and plausible alternative scenarios and evaluations.
Ken,
It seems your a very credible source of info from the various interviews you give ... your opinion really matters. My compliments to you for all your hard work.
However, why do you continually allow these XXXX to make this a political platform ... it's turned me off and it will turn others off. If you keep allowing this to happen, eventually it's going to tarnish your credibility in the finance world. You have readers that are fed up ... it's time to listen and shut down the nonsense.
Still I like to hedge my bets so if a long term CD comes out that's very close to 4% or more add-on CD's like NFCU's 3.3% with a higher rate comes along it's probably wise to have some rate insurance and at least a small percentage of funds locked up for a longer term. However I still think we will see 4%+ CD rates at some point during this cycle although it may be under 5 years.
BTW, I’m no “leftist” or “on the left”, from which perspective it’s always suggested those who object to off-the-wall right-wing conspiratorial and other extremist nonsense are corrupted by.
8)
Can Fed rate cuts be far behind?
Also when I go out, the stores are all busy but yes I agree demand drops in a recession but also when something gets too high, like when gasoline gets too high people start driving less, doesn't necessarily mean a recession... egg market got too high, $3.40 a dozen but the egg demand dried up and so this week the egg market has dropped 60 cents a dozen most likely closer to .90 cents by the end of this week, is that because of a recession... people still have to eat or it a supply and demand issue.
If it is a recession was it caused by inflation alone or was it due to a federal reserve that left rates too low which caused the inflation to get out of control.... just some thoughts.
Covid would have created defactor lockdowns as it spread across various industries.
Take the meat packing plants for instance.
It could have been more selective.
Like putting people over 50 in concentration camps to burn the virus out.
I think that was Trump's original solution to the problem.
https://www.bbb.org/us/oh/columbus/profile/credit-cards-and-plans/comenity-bank-0302-6558
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/fed-president-warns-inflation-higher-than-we-expect-spreading-nationwide/article_00b5e2a4-134d-11ed-85cc-ef7cac7456a5.html
I'm sure this site gets measured by clicks and user engagement, but how do you differentiate the activity reacting to the political messages from the activity of consumers shopping for CD's or educating themselves on financial topics?
Looks like DA is owned by LendingTree, is that right? A public company with shareholders and a reputation to protect.
This isn't the only place to look for bank deals, but I think it's the best. Let's not wreck it.
Incidentally, for some time it's amused me why many of those so “conservative” in investments, seem in many ways to be quite “liberal” politically. Meaning, WSJ, MarketWatch posts, or especially - here. Just sayin'.
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/coming-up-u-s-jobs-report-for-july-11659701564?mod=home-page
I would think this bodes well for the Fed focusing only on inflation and keeping those rates right up there where they belong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KFvoDDs0XM
https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interest-rates/countdown-to-fomc.html
You really said that out loud?
Parroting Trump was sarcasm, right?
Please say it was sarcasm!
As far as how effective masks are, I'm not an expert like some people claim to be so I would have to use some common sense and say in a contagious situation a mask can't hurt and would probably be better than no mask... I'm not a kissy kissy person so I don't tend to get that close to people anyways...;)
I don't wear a mask unless the business I have to go in has a sign that states, must wear a mask. I wouldn't want to work all day wearing a mask but to go into a store or for a brief period of time it doesn't bother me....I don't find it a big deal or an infringement of my rights to put on a mask if I have to.. I try not to sweat stuff that doesn't really matter to me.
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-wearing-n95-masks
Regarding 2024, I would prefer Biden not run, but then I would also prefer my 2024 CDs all rollover at 5% or better. Still too early for me to lock in on those predictions.
attitude just rushes to imply that obviously.
Sorry, but I disagree with you, as you cannot prove the mask "protects my life". Freedom is a wonderful thing; if you are convinced, go ahead and wear one. I will choose not to add more waste to the stream, not to mention the fact of how many of these things i have seen littering the ground in many public places; disgusting.I'll politely agree to disagree.
What if ? You have absolutely no way of knowing if the presence or absence of these "vaccines" would have made a difference either way, and it will forever remain unknown; that's the reality you are not taking into consideration.
Try to comprehend what you read instead of turning it into something else.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19/hospitalization-rates-confirm-covid-vaccines-benefits
"but I doubt this was true on average for all hospitals across the country."
Pot meet kettle. "You doubt" ? Where is your source for this blind assumption?
I rest my case.
Btw, he's not looking so good.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-begs-supporters-donate-upcoming-234514444.html
“The U.S. economy has experienced 12 recessions since World War II, and each one included two features: Economic output contracted and unemployment rose. Today, something highly unusual is happening. Economic output fell in the first quarter and signs suggest it did so again in the second. Yet the job market showed little sign of faltering during the first half of the year. The jobless rate fell from 4% last December to 3.6% in May.
It is the latest strange twist in the odd trajectory of the pandemic economy, and a riddle for those contemplating a recession. If the U.S. is in or near one, it doesn’t yet look like any other on record.
Analysts sometimes talked about “jobless recoveries” after past recessions, in which economic output rose but employers kept shedding workers. The first half of 2022 was the mirror image - a “jobful” downturn, in which output fell and companies kept hiring. Whether it will spiral into a fuller and deeper recession isn’t known, though a growing number of economists believe it will. ...”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/recession-economy-unemployment-jobs-11656947596?mod=article_inline
Interesting article.
https://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/pdf/TFTF_Aug_06_2022.pdf
"Donald Trump’s lawyers argued the statute of limitations shouldn’t apply to the lawsuit he filed against political rival Hillary Clinton because the “immense and unrelenting demands” of the job prevented him from doing so sooner.
The former president was simply too busy during his single term in office to discover the details of the alleged plot, which he claims involved a vast effort to falsely accuse him and his 2016 campaign of colluding with Russia and swamp him with costly investigations, his lawyers wrote in a filing Thursday night in federal court in Florida."
Juxtapose that claim with:
https://seattlemedium.com/donald-trump-spent-almost-a-year-playing-golf-during-presidency/
"President Donald Trump has spent 307 days, almost a full year, golfing during his presidency. The total is likely to be the most golf outings of any president in history. Additionally, Trump is likely to be collectively viewed by historians as one of the worst presidents in American history."
Well, if not the worst president, then perhaps the laziest or the most compulsive liar, or both. Am sure Trump's attorneys are hoping that Judge Donald Middlebrooks doesn't see that Seattle story, eh?
So I heard, Sleepy Joe tried to play golf a few times as Prez. Took the Secret Service handlers a day or two to strap him onto his bikey, add the training wheels, arrange the convoy to the golf course, teach him the game of golf, and tell him which way to (try to) hit the ball. By the 2nd hole the poor guy thought his name was “Titleist” because that was the name on his ball. By the 3rd hole all he remembered is that he'd seen an ad for “ice cream” at the clubhouse and after that wanted to go home - so with that the game was officially over.
Biden? My post is somewhat anecdotal (hence my precept "So I heard ..."). As some of yours have been also, if memory serves.
A day after making a widely watched public address on his economic plan, the Republican presidential nominee advised against betting on Wall Street.
The big problem, as Trump sees it: The low interest rate environment fostered by the Federal Reserve that has coincided with a 227 percent market gain since the financial crisis lows.
“If rates go up, you’re going to see something that’s not pretty,” the billionaire businessman told Fox News during a Tuesday morning phone interview. “It’s all a big bubble.”
____________________
Trump says ‘Boneheads’ at Fed should cut interest rates to zero — or even set negative rates
By David J. Lynch and Taylor Telford
September 11, 2019 at 3:58 p.m. EDT
So, where is your sources regarding Obama played more golf? It might be true but then he was in office for two terms.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-golf-trips-falsely-claims-less-than-obama-2020-7
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has suggested that Social Security and Medicare be eliminated as federal entitlement programs, and that they should instead become programs approved by Congress on an annual basis as discretionary spending.
Governor Rick Scott’s “11 point plan to rescue America,” released in his role as the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is a smorgasbord of bad ideas, such as finishing the border wall and naming it after Donald Trump, and requiring all federal programs to expire after just five years—including, presumably, Medicare and Social Security.https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/008860e7-93bd-47dd-a786-fbfdfee24868/jec---scott-plan...
Btw, I kind of hope it drops, best time to buy stocks is in a bear market.
I'm not happy with some of Biden's focus on foreign issues, but am supportive of many of his domestic ones such as infrastructure and attempt to improve health care and the climate, and I like that he is not constantly having rallies. But Biden does not represent the entire Democratic party, whereas many of the Republicans running appear to be joined at the hip with Trump. I guess I see myself as a Social Democrat, along the lines of FDR. Of course I would like to not pay less taxes, but I understands taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. But therefore that society should benefit on the whole from those taxes. Here's a good quote from Truman that I agree with. In President Harry's Truman's remarks in Syracuse, New York on October 10, 1952, he said this:
"Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is "Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal."
That's all he means."
Not much has changed since 1952 has it? Trump of course did not get the Republican party to where it was in 2016, but he hasn't enlightened it either.
So your all in on climate change and Democratic socialism and want higher taxes on yourself for the "greater good" huh? Well I guess I'm one of those greedy Republicans who thinks the government already has their hands too deep in my pockets already. Oh and btw the Trump tax brackets just like the Bush tax brackets gave the largest percentage tax cut to the poor. Yes I know it's hard to believe because the news will not tell you this but it is true. That's percentage not dollars this is how to evaluate tax cuts. The 10% tax bracket was basically eliminated due to the higher standard deduction. This benefited the lowest earners the most again on a percentage basis. I mean 0% tax for the lowest earners is a pretty big deal yet I never see this mentioned anywhere. Just look at the current 10% tax bracket and then look at the standard deduction and you will see the standard deduction is higher than the whole 10% tax bracket. Thus low income earners pay 0% Federal tax. Now who did that? Trump Prove me wrong. And please just the numbers math doesn't lie. Kind of puts a damper on the whole "tax cut only for the rich" spiel doesn't it?
Breaking News: FBI raids Mar--a-Lago.
Oh and what were the results of the whole "Russian collusion" so called investigation Choice? Yeah nothing go figure. Funny you think Hillary was innocent with proof and Trump's guilty without proof.
Now the current 10% tax brackets are as follows. Single $0-$9,950 Married filing jointly $0-$19,900. Are you picking up what I'm putting down here? Those with low income pay 0% federal tax on a larger amount of their income thanks to the Trump tax cuts. Period end of story it's just a fact. No you won't see this reported on CNN or Yahoo finance or CNBC because it doesn't fit with their agenda. Now what they do to put a negative spin on this is compare the dollars saved by a rich guy with millions to the dollars saved by someone with a low income. A completely ridiculous and unfair comparison not using percentages but instead dollars. They do this every time tax cuts are brought up in order to push the "tax cuts only for the rich" spiel. What amazes me is many here who are otherwise very financially savvy have fallen for this lie hook, line and sinker without looking at the percentages in this way.
Let's compare before and after tcja using a single person earning about minimum wage with an Adjusted Gross Income of $16000:
2017: std_ded: 6350 + PE: 4050, Taxable Income: 5600, tax: 560
2018: std_ded: 12000, Taxable Income: 4000, tax: 400
Note that in 2018 the personal exemption was slated to increase by 100, so the tax difference is really only $150. The 10% tax bracket was not basically eliminated at all, in fact, it is the only bracket that basically did not change (the other brackets either went down or their taxable income amounts changed significantly, such as the 35% bracket). If your point is that for those earning less than or equal to the standard deduction (or std ded plus PE) would not owe any federal taxes that has always been the case. And because all the other brackets went down or their range was changed, the more taxable income one has, that is, the richer one is, the more one benefited from tcja in 2018 vs 2017. The facts are: 10% bracket not eliminated although the increase in the standard deduction in 2018 did remove $1500 (single) from taxable income in 2018. (I have no idea how many were removed from having to pay federal income tax due to that, do you?) But it's not like anyone alone can live on $12000, and because our taxes are progressive, anything that benefits the poor benefits the rich, speaking of the rich:
A couple with a million dollar income claiming standard deductions would have the following federal taxes:
2017: 332994 vs 2018: 300499
Of course, no one with a million dollar income takes the standard deduction ;-)
By your focusing just on percentages (although you don't show any specifics), you obviously are trying to cherry pick the numbers to your advantage. But consider this, "On average, the richest 1 percent received a $278,540 lifetime tax cut (lifetime spending increase) under TCJA — miles higher than the $21,704 going, on average, to those in the middle and the $4,975 going, on average, to those at the bottom."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2019/07/23/did-the-rich-get-all-of-trumps-tax-cuts/?sh=3aa38b...
Obviously, after tax, the rich come out way ahead. What percent difference is it between 22k vs 278k, 5k vs 278K?
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/personal-finance/how-tax-reform-impacts-your-tax-bracket-an...
Trump (5/16): "everybody is getting a tax cut, especially the middle class" ...
"the rich are probably going to end up paying more"
Trump (9/17): "No, I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very very strongly, as
you see, I think there's very little benefit for people of wealth."
Promise made, promise not kept!
Anyway, I don't agree that the highest percentage of tax cuts went to the poor or middle class. First, the numbers I posted in #228 clearly show that on average this is not the case. Second, due to something i alluded to before called your effective tax rate (tax owed divided by taxable income), which typically is lower than your marginal tax rate (except for those in the 10% bracket), which is the last bracket you fall into. Each bracket is accounted for as you move up the tax ladder (that is, any reduction to a lower bracket will also benefit those higher up) so the more you move up the lower your effective rate. "The independent Tax Policy Center in Washington estimated in 2021 that in 2015, the highest-earning 1,400 households in the country paid an average effective tax rate of about 24 percent, compared with an average rate of about 14 percent for all taxpayers." So, those n the 12% bracket (marginal rate) will be even less, which should make you happy.
This will also make you happy. I agree Democrats have let the middle class down when it comes to taxation and sharing in this country's prosperity. I think Biden is trying to rectify that but he has a couple road blocks, unfortunately.
so when you say "$4,975 going, on average, to those at the bottom" what you are leaving out is that $4,975 is a large chunk (%) of their tax burden and many more of them ended up with ZERO for their tax bill after getting to keep that $4,975 whereas those in the higher brackets who "got more $$$" still had a tax bill much larger than ZERO after the tax cuts took effect (and many of them in the high tax states actually ended up with a larger tax bill after the cuts thanks to the cap on the SALT which didn't affect the guys at the bottom who don't come close to having enough to claim the SALT limit).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/14/biden-tax-plan-salt-deduction-cap/
no, it's not "always been the case", as you prove by inappropriately adding PE to the std ded in order to claim that it was. Those are two different things. Even though the PE was eliminated at the same time as the standard deduction was raised does not make them the same thing, so it's disingenuous at best for you to claim them as one and the same when tying to counter an argument about just the standard deduction alone.
And if you are counting them as the same, well then that's one more example where the "poor" (who do take the standard deduction) benefited more than the "rich" (who, as you point out, don't take the standard deduction) as before the rich could still take PE even if they didn't take the standard deduction. now there's no PE for them to take. So thanks for providing another example that works against the point you are trying (and failing) to make.
The SD and PE were both deducted from your AGI. You are are the one being disingenuous by not just admitting that. And it definitely is the same case, that if your income is less than or equal to the new std_ded (or old std_ded+PE) you would owe no federal income tax. Your last paragraph is a joke in that millionaires would be concerned with losing the PE, on the other hand the middle class perhaps would depending on how many children they have over 17. The point is the trump std_ded is not that much better than the old std_ded+PE. You are so determined to stick your loyalty to trump you see issues where there are none and vice versa.
“Under current regulations, the Department [of Energy] can enter into contracts for future delivery, but the price paid reflects prices at the time that product is delivered. By instead allowing for the price to be fixed at the time the transaction is executed between the parties, this regulatory change would provide greater certainty to producers regarding the revenues they could expect to generate if they produce more crude oil in the short- term, knowing that the Department has contracted to purchase these barrels at a previously agreed-upon price to replenish reserves.”
Basically, they’re saying the government will refill the SPR in future years at pre-negotiated fixed prices. That’s one of the missing pieces in getting oil and gas companies to produce more. They need confidence in future prices before investing in future production.
So, for example, the federal government could offer to buy X billion barrels of oil for the SPR to be delivered in 2024–2030 at $80 a barrel, guaranteed by contract. That might generate enough new supply to stabilize market prices. The companies would earn nice profits and the economy would benefit. (One problem would be: Who gets that nice juicy contract?)
Is that government intervention? Absolutely. It could go badly wrong, too. But it’s not conceptually different from the USDA’s crop price guarantee programs. Those aren’t ideal but they do help ensure an adequate supply of critical resources.
https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/CL*0/futures-prices
“When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice,” Trump said
He left out one other reason, if you are guilty.
Trump said in 2016, “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment. The mob takes the Fifth.”
Breaking News: Trump Takes the Fifth Amendment in New York Deposition
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/08/10/nyregion/trump-testimony-investigation-news
Lawrence O’Donnell kicked off Tuesday’s The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell by showing an email he’d received from former President Donald Trump’s fundraising team. On Monday, the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Fla., reportedly searching for classified material that the former president took with him when he left office in violation of the Presidential Records Act. O’Donnell showed the email on the screen as he read it aloud.
Mar-a-Lago was raided,” the email began. “The radical Left is corrupt. We must return the power to the people. Please rush in a donation immediately to publicly stand with me against this never-ending witch hunt.”
Also I don't think Trump should be allowed to run for any political office, ever.
No, my problem with Trump was his constant lying, self dealing, anti-environment, anti- endangered species, his nepotism and cronyism while in office, his covert racism, etc.. And he was clearly a crook before he got into office (see Trump University). He said the mob takes the Fifth, he loves the mob aka dictators. As far as us being in the minority, let me remind you that 80 million of us voted against Trump. He's twice impeached and first raided . . . what a record.
Pay more attention to the 5 and 10 year Treasury Yield Chart (FVX/TNX), Gasoline Futures (/RB), and Brent Sweet Crude Oil (/BZ) as they will have a direct bearing on your investment (CD/Bonds) decisions going forward.