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

POSTED ON BY

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:

  1. 2022: 300-325 bps of rate hikes, 2023 25-50 bps of rate hikes (2yr gain of 325-375 bps)
  2. 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.


Comments
remrem
  |     |   Comment #1
Thank you Ken,
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.
#2 - This comment has been removed for violating our comment policy.
rockies
  |     |   Comment #3
It appears the big Merchants Bank of Indiana 77bps Friday Money Market increase from 1.51%APY to 2.28%APY was accidentally omitted from the Savings, Checking and Money Market Rates section. This positions MBoI just 2 bps behind leader CFG Bank.  And, yes, I also appreciate the challenge of managing a mountain of rapidly changing information.  Thank you Ken.
gregk
  |     |   Comment #4
Astonishing to me that Ken references the prediction of Fed rate cuts (by July 2023). Let's see inflation down to 2% for about 6 months running before that dirty phrase (for savers) even crosses the radar.
lou
  |     |   Comment #5
I think he is suggesting that the Fed will chicken out and start reducing rates before we achieve 2% inflation. This seems to be what the markets are indicating.
gregk
  |     |   Comment #31
The Fed will necessarily follow market directives is what’s being suggested then, - and the tail wag the dog?

That would be typical, I suppose, and characteristically gutless.
Striker
  |     |   Comment #10
I do not believe inflation will be tamed by June 2023. I do believe the feds will cave to tremendous pressure to drive down rates. No one knows for sure.
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.
MY2CENTWORTH
  |     |   Comment #9
Thanks Ken for putting more emphasis on rate changes and top rates of CD's and liquid accounts.Future Fed Summaries has been dominated by political talk, comments offensive to many, and the same few always spouting off. Its obvious they have spoiled it for themselves!
milty
  |     |   Comment #16
Thanks again, Ken, for providing this valuable information. Sorry to see this blog getting published less frequently, and I hope it is not due to its political content, which I assume going forward your policy will still allow on this particular blog. However, given the speculation that rate cuts could be imminent in 2023, I would hope that as the odds of this look more likely that you might consider publishing more frequently. This would be of particular value to those with CDs maturing in 2023/2024 and needing to consider their EWP options.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #22
Ken is probably realizing that it hurts the blog....who knew???
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #30
No Mak probably some crying, pearl clutching, and feigned outrage. You know from people who can't tolerate anyone else's opinion and report others posts as a hobby. ; )
Mak
  |     |   Comment #57
dep... if people did not think it was hurting the blog then they wouldn't complain so that in itself is proof it is hurting the blog...Ken wouldn't make a change for just a couple people so if you're right, it's more people than you probably think.
Have you seen how many sites that used to have a comment section have ended them?
P_D
  |     |   Comment #80
#57
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.
Sanger
  |     |   Comment #88
Hi P-D what a great night Tuesday night was with the primaries we are getting great candidates for November I am feeling very hopeful .
P_D
  |     |   Comment #90
Sanger... Yes, great primary season is looking promising. But for me it is cautious optimism. The voters need to get out and speak their minds at that ballot box and we cannot have a chaotic election like the last one where ballots were scattered around like scrap paper and the sanctity of the process was in shambles. We need to win the court cases against the unconstitutional assault on the election process from the Democrats that took place in 2020 so it is not repeated again. Until then it is not mission accomplished. But yes, the slate of Republican candidates is looking stronger with each primary.
milty
  |     |   Comment #92
#90: Good grief, you're still crying over your poor ole stolen election. I know what would cheer you up, a nice "tour" of the Capitol, right after you overturn Kansas's recent referendum. Well, do you feel lucky . . .
Sanger
  |     |   Comment #99
Hi P-D you are right look what is going on in Arizona it has been 24 hours since Primary Election and still have not counted all the votes this is crazy 2020 all over again.
Sanger
  |     |   Comment #89
One more thing P-D it looks like Krysten Sinema is not happy with Bidens Climate and Tax Bill, she said it not a good time to raise taxes in a Recession I thought we were not in a Recession we will see if she votes on this I do not think so .
P_D
  |     |   Comment #91
I don't have a lot of faith in Sinema any more than I had faith in Manchin. Both of them have a history of selling out at some point like Manchin did on this bill. I don't have a lot of confidence that Sinema will kill the bill, but I hope she will. It's another Trojan Horse bill from the Democrats to increase the power of government and reduce the power of the citizens. Little by little they are taking away our rights and using "crises" as their excuse.  And they are not above creating a crisis if there isn't any real one around.  That is their forte.
milty
  |     |   Comment #94
#91: Watch out because, and this will really upset the former guy, the Dems will take away your right to cheat on your taxes and separate families. The horror . . . .
blazer9
  |     |   Comment #95
#80
think #80 first paragraph fits you well
:(
milty
  |     |   Comment #96
#80: Yes, I believe your fuhrer will create a vast army of loyal civil servants that will instill his law and his order and rule for a thousand years. Zeig heile!
111
  |     |   Comment #107
Milty, #80 - Congrats - don't know if there is a “Grandest Prize of ALL Time” for calling Trump Hitler in 2 comments within the same thread, but if so - you won it, man!
milty
  |     |   Comment #110
111, Thanks, I accept it. (My SO is reading Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and sees many parallels.)
WhartonFool
  |     |   Comment #162
Gee Milty, you'd never cut it as a Nazi.
It's..
Sieg heil!
milty
  |     |   Comment #181
gee, and here I thought i spell checked it . . . good thing I didn't make that mistake back in 1933
111
  |     |   Comment #185
#181 - Milty, you might consider deferring to "*Fool"'s spelling of Nazi catchphrases. After all he certainly understands the concept of "blitzkrieg".
WhartonFool
  |     |   Comment #159
Sounds more like Trump's January 6th mob.
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!
111
  |     |   Comment #183
#159 - I seriously doubt anyone here believes you attended Wharton. However, the other half of your “handle” describes you to a “T”.
GreenDream
  |     |   Comment #103
Ah yes, Mak, make up claims and shout them loud enough and then use that as proof that your claims have merit. Sorry, that's not proof, that's mobbing and the hecklers veto. Again, shame on you for stooping to such low and underhanded tactics to try to shut up those you disagree with.
111
  |     |   Comment #184
Sure I remember - gas was only a bit over 2 bucks! Otherwise a pretty slow news day...
gregk
  |     |   Comment #47
Rate cuts are NOT “imminent” in 2023, Milty, or even plausibly “could be”. What data supports such idle speculation (as opposed to market fantasies and pressures)?

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.
Robb
  |     |   Comment #68
Greg agree 100%. Anyone that thinks that a 2.25% Fed funds rate or even 3% is going to tame a 9.1% CPI print is likely going to be in for a surprise next year if history is any guide. There was definitely no pivot by the Fed during the last conference call…perhaps a slight shift to data dependency. But many Fed governors including the flaming dove Kashkari have clearly spoken out this week that they are nowhere near being close to having a handle on taming the inflation beast.

https://www.forexlive.com/centralbank/uber-fed-dove-kashkari-sounds-hawkish-we-are-a-long-way-away-from-achieving-2-inflation-20220731/
milty
  |     |   Comment #79
gregk: I was basing my post on Ken's statement, "By the July 26, 2023 meeting, odds have increased slightly that there will be at least one rate cut." So, my point was if these odds continue to increase that maybe it would be good for Ken to post this blog more often. Because, by the time the Fed reverses, banks will have already started to lower rates, so the more heads up the Saver has the better. Other than that, I have no idea that rate cuts are imminent, and certainly would not like to see another about face like in 2019.
kcfield
  |     |   Comment #24
Ken: I think moving the column to monthly and also coordinating the timing with scheduled Fed meetings seems wise and helpful.
gregk
  |     |   Comment #28
As I see it, much of this particular column has been no more than a rehash from week to week, together with far more than it deserves attention to the (worthless IMO) Federal Funds Futures odds, - and PD pretty chronically disrupts intelligent conversation about relevant happenings with phony statistics and fantasy critiques of everyone he doesn’t like.

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.
jimcarey484
  |     |   Comment #33
My email to Ken after last weeks horrible display of comments:

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.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #36
See comment #30 and apply "liberally" as needed to the affected area.
lou
  |     |   Comment #52
Don't read the comments or at least the comments you don't like. Problem solved. You guys would have more credibility if you also wanted to shutdown all speech with which you approve. Should we also censor all Trump bashing?
Robb
  |     |   Comment #74
Lou you just nailed the crux of the issue. How difficult is it to avoid the comment section if it bothers you?  And how does this one thread where people are free to express their opinions on either side of the ledger in any way shape or form “tarnish Ken’s credibility in the finance world?” Sorry no sale. Ken has a fabulous site and I personally am sorry to see him scale back this thread.
milty
  |     |   Comment #34
FYI: First Foundation Bank just increased its savings rate from 1.65% to 2..02%.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #39
Vanguard is now at 1.99% on a 7 day yield, will be moving higher in the next couple of days.
SavyCD
  |     |   Comment #37
3.55% APY on a 2-year CD, anyone know which one this is?
Mak
  |     |   Comment #40
The highest 2 year I see is Bread financial at 3.5%
rockies
  |     |   Comment #43
I assume the reference was to the 3.55% APY 3-year (not 2-year) CD from CFG Bank.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #38
Anyway back on topic. As usual I'll stick my neck out and go against popular opinion. I believe that the market and rate predictions are wrong. I think it is most likely that inflation stays high enough for the FED to do another .75% rate hike or possibly more .5% hikes. I also think they will not reverse as quickly unless there is a total economic collapse then all bets are off the table.
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.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #41
I for one am very sorry to see this blog get posted less frequently. This is one of the reasons I first visited DA in the old anonymous days. I hope this change is not due to some people's intolerance of others opinions. If that's the case then it is a very sad commentary on the state of our country and this site. This country above all others has prided itself on the freedom of speech. Many of us served in the military and many more have died for the freedoms that we now enjoy. I know I tend to joke around a bit but I don't find it at all funny that there are those who would trade in some hurt feelings or uncomfortable truths for freedom of speech. I'm not making this statement to start an argument or trying to insult anyone just sharing my thoughts on this matter. Thank you for reading and please don't delete. -DP-1
gregk
  |     |   Comment #51
No one is arguing for restrictions on “free speech” here, but simply recognizing and lamenting that those who repetitively post blatant falsehoods and delusions over and over and over again in obsessive fashion tend to sap participant enthusiasm for attempting intelligent and sensible exchange (even when disagreeing).

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.
blazer9
  |     |   Comment #61
There was a nice change back then when DP1 went on vacation.
8)
Mak
  |     |   Comment #45
Don't look now but oil is down from $130 a barrel to $91 today... that is roughly a 30% drop from the top..... if people are going to point out its rise you would think those same people would want to comment on its drop.
lou
  |     |   Comment #54
This is what happens when you are entering a recession. Demand takes a dive.
milty
  |     |   Comment #58
Nothing wrong with a little price recession at least for food and fuel. Seems like recession hasn't caught up though to the Boss's ticket prices: $5K, ouch!
gregk
  |     |   Comment #59
More accurately, the “expectation” of reduced demand, Lou.

Can Fed rate cuts be far behind?
Mak
  |     |   Comment #64
Lou, just wondering why it was mentioned on the way up and not a peep on the way down.
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.
lou
  |     |   Comment #69
The Fed left rates too low and the current administration passed a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill in March of 2021, which was too much and not necessary since the economy was already recovering. It also didn't help that we shutdown the economy with intermittent lockdowns during the pandemic. That wreaked havoc on supply chains. Then you had Biden and the Fed denying that inflation was a problem until it was too late.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #72
I agree with some of that but not all of it, to be honest I'm not sure the lockdowns were necessary or unnecessary... also supply issues are still going on, plus the federal reserve controls monetary policy, not Biden.
WhartonFool
  |     |   Comment #164
The lockdowns were basically irrevelant.
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.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #208
#164...remember when Trump said some kind of disinfectant like bleach and ultra violet rays could kill the virus and should be studied...lol
ChrisinFla
  |     |   Comment #85
I have cut back on driving about 25%....
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #84
Could be demand destruction but seems a bit premature for that. Lets see if it stays low. Didn't we just empty out the oil reserves to lower prices? Now what happens when that runs out? A temporary patch on a blown tire.
ChrisinFla
  |     |   Comment #87
I understand the Bidenites are planning on refilling at high prices, the SPR is at a multi decade low. As I recall the Dems blocked Trump from buying under $20 a barrel!
rockies
  |     |   Comment #53
There is a reference in this article to Bread Financial's (aka Bread Savings) leading 5-year CD rate of 3.65%. As noted on the Bread Savings site, "Bread Savings™ is a product of Comenity Capital Bank". Potential investors may want to be aware that the Better Business Bureau "opened an investigation into Comenity Bank on July 12, 2022." Depending on your bank criteria, you may or may not care. FYI. BBB Alert details can be found on the Comenity Bank BBB site here

https://www.bbb.org/us/oh/columbus/profile/credit-cards-and-plans/comenity-bank-0302-6558
flex
  |     |   Comment #55
Thanks. I believe CFG is also offering the same 5 year rate (3.65% APY) with an EWP of 180 days.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #75
Possible double top coming up on the spx at 4177 but 4227 is pretty close which is the halfway back, if it can get above there then 4340 to 4367 would be next.
Scotsaver
  |     |   Comment #81
Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund 7 day yield also hit 2% yesterday and is likely to rise further as it trades out maturing bonds for those with higher yields. Expecting slower increases over coming month.
decades
  |     |   Comment #83
Fed Governor ...Inflation higher than we expected, Spreading nationwide.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/fed-president-warns-inflation-higher-than-we-expect-spreading-nationwide/article_00b5e2a4-134d-11ed-85cc-ef7cac7456a5.html
goldismoney
  |     |   Comment #108
Would be a good statement to make in his resignation. Imagine a firefighter lighting a fire and being shocked that it spread quickly. And then dumping 0.75 of a glass of water on it and claiming he is doing everything possible to control it.
fred_b
  |     |   Comment #93
I've told Ken that the political propaganda getting posted on DA is ruining his website. If I were an advertiser with DA this would give me pause. Nobody wants to get into the moderator role, but at some point you need to worry about retaining your audience.

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.
milty
  |     |   Comment #97
Am just curious, but have you never looked at the comments posted on other financial websites like WSJ or Marketwatch? They often turn into a political donnybrook as well. Well, except those sites tend to have more conservatives.
111
  |     |   Comment #98
Sort of/kind of agree. Milty. Except that MarketWatch posts are clearly more leftist than WSJ (as are the articles). Understandable since MarketWatch is “free” (no such thing as a free lunch, remember the old adage?) - among several other reasons.

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'.
milty
  |     |   Comment #104
Hmm, not sure about Marketwatch having more leftist, never actually did a count and kept track. However, perhaps the big difference here is that Ken starts this blog/thread every Tuesday, and then it's the right vs left for the next several days every week. Whereas with those other publications, the comments are related to one particular article that has a shelf life of about a day. So, yeah, I can see where some would find the same constant sound and fury here to be annoying, but then as others have said, don't read the comments. Of course, I don't really know why Ken has changed the schedule, perhaps has absolutely nothing to do with interrupting this game of politics we love so well.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #100
Well Milty you would think that most any financial sites would have more conservatives unless they are being censored that is. This is because it goes hand in hand with being fiscally conservative. Even Yahoo finance(a super liberal site) had mostly conservatives towards the end before they stopped all commenting because they were losing the battle in the comments section. Comments are back up now that the election is over but they ended all comments 6 months prior. Once again things that make you go hmmmm.
Chief
  |     |   Comment #105
Thanks for all you do. Still, I liked it when you posted MORE "special CD rates" . There are multiple sources for economic data but I check your postings daily for rate specials and seeing less than in the past. I guess you had me spoiled. Your efforts are appreciated and always right on though!
milty
  |     |   Comment #112
"Jobs shocker: U.S. adds 528,000 jobs in July and unemployment falls to pre-pandemic levels "
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.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #113
Well they didn't take into consideration the labor force participation rate when they tout the low unemployment numbers but as you say milty it does bode well for interest rate hikes. This may help urge Powell into another .75% rate hike. I guess that's why the stock market futures were down. lol See why I'm still holding out for higher rate CD's? ; ) "I love it when a plan comes together" -Hannibal
Mak
  |     |   Comment #115
Uh, Oh....528,000 jobs added, oil under $90, gasoline under $3.90 here, commodities dropping, CD rates rising.....good job President Biden!
lou
  |     |   Comment #116
No, the numbers are not good. 528,000 jobs is bad for inflation. The other bad number inflation-wise is 0.5% monthly wage growth. Wall Street is realizing inflation, which is wreaking havoc on real wages and prices, is not going to be easily extinguished. Good for savers if deposit rates keep climbing.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #119
Lou... I look at it this way, I know how much it cost me to live every year and for me I'm okay with some inflation because I have a lot of CDs coming due for the next year and 9 months, plus personally I don't see inflation staying high forever.
WhartonFool
  |     |   Comment #167
And pretty much nobody saw it coming except for about 5 economists. Three of which have been stating inflation it inevitable for like the last 10 years. The other 2 actually made coherent arguments instead of just being chicken littles.
WhartonFool
  |     |   Comment #165
Inflation is good for savers?
You really said that out loud?
lou
  |     |   Comment #189
I said if deposit rates go up. The game is to skillfully lock in the higher rate while inflation is high and hope it starts dropping at some point.
111
  |     |   Comment #117
Dunno, Mak. As I sit here typing this the news is showing video of deep-blue Eric Adams and Muriel Bowser very angry at Biden over illegal immigrants being relocated to NYC & DC. NIMBY for the blue states and sanctuary cities, eh? Last polls I saw show 70% of Dems do not want him to run in 2024. Just sayin'.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #120
111.... I really don't care about politics that much, I just can't stand Trump and even if you and some of the other guys think differently I myself think Trump is bad for the country... also I don't think Biden should run again, I think he is too old and imo so is trump. Now if Liz Cheney runs for president then I would probably vote for her but I would have to do some homework on her politics but she is a republican I can respect.
Sanger
  |     |   Comment #125
Comment #120 You got to be kidding me I cannot believe you said that VERY SAD!
Mak
  |     |   Comment #128
Which part Sanger, the part about not wanting Biden to run again... you find that very sad? lol
Sanger
  |     |   Comment #153
Mak comment # 128 you are a loss cause .
Mak
  |     |   Comment #209
#153... funny Sanger, I feel the same way about you.
WhartonFool
  |     |   Comment #168
Comment #125
Parroting Trump was sarcasm, right?
Please say it was sarcasm!
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #118
Yeah Mak good job right up until the stock market and housing market crash simultaneously. I don't want to be right I really don't I still have some money in the market too. Oh and gas went down to $1 a gallon while Trump was in office at one point and oil was like $40 or less. Oh and doesn't Joe have covid again after being quadruple vaxxed? Uggh what am I saying look at the alternative get well soon Joe.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #121
dep... You seem to forget, you solely blame Biden and the democrats for the inflation, I don't ..I blame the federal reserve and also the supply chain issues didn't help... plus housing doesn't have to crash but people couldn't afford housing so what is wrong with it coming down, maybe my real estate taxes will stop going up..;) Just so you, Lou and 111 know, I really put that original comment on here to stir up the site a little, I was bored at the time...;)
Mak
  |     |   Comment #122
dep...oh yeah, and as far as him getting covid even though he was vaccinated 4 times, he's not dead from it yet. I believe that the vaccine helps save you from getting seriously ill from it or even worse, dead. Ifs are tough but what if he got covid at his age and wasn't vaccinated, that's the other side you are not taking into consideration.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #123
Yep that's their story on the vaccines Mak and you are sticking to it I see. Let's just say I have a very different opinion. Oh you don't still think masks stop a virus too do you. Hey just asking.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #124
dep... you're talking to the wrong person about that, I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, I leave that up to others.
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.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #127
Well It's only a conspiracy "theory" until proven true. A term created to to discourage anyone from challenging the accepted narrative and/or independent thought.
milty
  |     |   Comment #126
I still wear the mask (have got a ton of N95 masks thanks to Joe), when out and about, since infection rates are still high locally, but especially when making saw dust in my shop. You can really see how effective they are in that environment.

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.
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #132
I can also see how detrimental masks are to the environment, as if we didn't already have an enormous stream of garbage and waste flowing into all corners of it.
milty
  |     |   Comment #146
That's certainly a poor argument for not wearing something that can protect your life, kind of like saying "I would rather that I and my entire family die than put one more piece of garbage in the landfill." I assume that means that all your garbage is recyclable?
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #151
Wasn't even providing an "argument", so much as an observation, but your
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. 
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #131
"Ifs are tough but what if he got covid at his age and wasn't vaccinated"

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.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #133
" Ifs are tough but what if he got covid at his age and wasn't vaccinated, that's the other side you are not taking into consideration."

Try to comprehend what you read instead of turning it into something else.
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #135
I comprehended what was indeed your original comment just fine; thank you for the condescending reply. Turning what into "something else" ? I merely stated whether the mRNA treatment - or lack thereof - would have made a difference either way, and that it will never be determined.
blazer9
  |     |   Comment #136
Another Moth attracted into the DA republican drone flame.
111
  |     |   Comment #138
Well now "blazer", seems like the far left more-or-less has its own "flames" too, if you want to include the burning cities of the epic "summer BLM riots of 2020". Quite the multimedia visual event, as we all recall.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #137
Exactly rtschier yet the accepted narrative is that "well it would have been worse had he/they not been vaccinated". Based on what? Pure speculation and media propaganda as far as I can see and there is much evidence if you care to look that these so called experimental mRNA "vaccines" have had many detrimental side effects which can be as bad or worse than covid. Then on top of that the "it's a woman's right to choose" crowd thinks it's ok to try and force everyone to comply with experimental vaccines. To that I say: "my body my choice". The truth is out there -Fox Mulder
#139 - This comment has been removed for violating our comment policy.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #140
Exactly GD funny how that works isn't it? The unborn baby however doesn't have any choice. : (
milty
  |     |   Comment #147
Certainly you see that when you choose not to get vaccinated or tested or stay isolated that not only does it affect you but could directly affect others as well by spreading the disease with a "Typhoid Mary" approach to pandemics. This is spurious reasoning to compare vaccination to a woman's right to choose.
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #142
This year, there were many days where the greater share of total hospitalizations were of those who were fully "vaxxed"/boosted, as opposed to those who were not. It certainly begs many questions. Note that I receive a dig upon calling out the assumption; they cannot help themselves.
milty
  |     |   Comment #144
Please provide your source regarding more hospitalized who were vaccinated versus those who were not. There are indeed studies that show these covid vaccines work, for example

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19/hospitalization-rates-confirm-covid-vaccines-benefits
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #149
The data was reported by local MSM affiliates for the State of CT (sourced from the official covid reporting for the state) throughout essentially the first five months of the year. They are no longer reporting this kind of detail, as hospitalizations and deaths are very low, and have been flat for some time now. The majority % share vaxxed vs unvaxxed has traded places at given times, but it has essentially wavered upon either side of 50/50, which certainly begs the question.
milty
  |     |   Comment #154
Am sorry you cannot find the source showing "there were many days where the greater share of total hospitalizations were of those who were fully "vaxxed"/boosted, as opposed to those who were not." I don't doubt there were some hospitals somewhere when at sometime this was true, but I doubt this was true on average for all hospitals across the country. That is, the fact that some days a hospital might have more vaccinated patients does not statistically prove that the vaccines are ineffective.
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #157
I clearly communicated the source; you're becoming obtuse. And - at the same time - it in no way proves that the vaccines are effective either.

"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.
milty
  |     |   Comment #180
Read #144 for at least one source out of many . . . oh, and get your pot ready.
b3ck
  |     |   Comment #141
RTSCHIER - Taking into consideration the age of the president it seems common sense that he would be better off vaccinated, unless you would prefer Kamala.
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #143
With what I've seen as far as our own State's hospitalization demographics, that simply cannot be assumed. I was merely pointing out that any impact can never be known. Your point of "err on the side of safety" is taken, however I am not convinced as to which is the "safer side", if one indeed exists at all.
milty
  |     |   Comment #145
" ... any impact can never be known" sorry, but this seems totally irrational thinking. Do you apply that same thought process to all science in general?
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #150
Nothing "irrational" about it whatsoever. To know definitively if impact to a specific individual would have made any ultimate difference, you would have to clone the subject patient, and then you would still have the "nurture" component of "nature + nurture" to deal with to assure comparability. You would need an exact replica of the subject for control purposes, and that indeed applies to "science" in general. What is truly irrational, is jumping to a blind conclusion that the individual fared better via the mRNA treatment.
milty
  |     |   Comment #155
It seems like you are immune to understanding what a double-blind study is or statistical analysis involving human biology. Sorry.
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #156
Failed attempt to address the SPECIFIC case presented here, which relates to a  SINGLE individual's outcome, for which you can only make an assumption, double blind study or not - and with the endless waffling surrounding all things "covid", I can only feel wary of any "studies" or "data" they present, along with all their "perhaps", "could be" , "maybe", "possibly", "potentially" qualified observations. I view their failure to recognize the rapid drop in efficacy during their "trials", as just one facet that brings their vetting process into question. I am looking to absolute confirmation only. You are obviously "immune" to civil discourse. Good day to you sir.
WhartonFool
  |     |   Comment #169
Actually, there are statistics that the vaccine does work in the sense that it keeps people out of the hospital, out of the ICU and out of the morgue MORE OFTEN than people who opt-out of getting a vaccination. My county's health department website publishes this data on their website. Right now it's around 70% of the people in the hospital and ICU are what they call "with incomplete primary series" vaccination status. So, you can belief whatever you want. But, facts are facts.
rtschier
  |     |   Comment #176
Keep in mind however, that those are "facts" that apply to your county; we've had literally only a handful overall in the ICU, and our vaxxed vs unvaxxed split has wavered depending upon the given day. The only thing I truly care to "believe" at this point, is this is no longer an issue of any kind, as we only have some 300 hospitalizations within a state population of some 4 MIL. Time to move on for sure.
milty
  |     |   Comment #178
#169: Thanks. I don't get it how someone today can take an individual case (or county) and then generalize its outcome to an entire population. Or for that matter state that " ... any impact can never be known" regardless of statistical data. Sure, there are anomalies (just maybe you'll be that lucky case), but not smart to bet your life against the odds.
lou
  |     |   Comment #166
Could care less about Covid. I'm so over it.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #129
Don't forget to donate to the so called billionaire trump, he must not want to spend his own money so please help him out.
Btw, he's not looking so good.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-begs-supporters-donate-upcoming-234514444.html
111
  |     |   Comment #130
Regardless of your political viewpoint, something very unusual is happening in the US economy these days. From a July 4 WSJ article -

“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.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #134
111...can't open it but here is one you might find interesting.
https://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/pdf/TFTF_Aug_06_2022.pdf
goldismoney
  |     |   Comment #152
What's unusual is interest rates way below inflation. Wages are dropping fast towards 0, why wouldn't hiring stay strong? Since most people will soon need 2 jobs to eat the unemployment rate should count those with only 1 job
milty
  |     |   Comment #148
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tells-judge-too-busy-185041560.html
"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?
111
  |     |   Comment #186
Ah yes, a citation from the “Seattle Medium”. Mainstream American opinion at its best, eh, Milty? I mean really, WaPo and NYT are bad enough, but this tripe... Interesting that you're having to scurry increasingly further leftwards to “sources”, for “facts”.

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.
milty
  |     |   Comment #188
There are plenty of sources that corroborate Trump's numerous golf holidays, but I thought you would enjoy a change from msm, and get a good laugh about Trump claiming he was too busy to sue someone. Please post your link about Biden, though.
111
  |     |   Comment #190
Milty, the idea that I'd appreciate a break from MSM assumes that I'd ever view MSM in the first place - excluding unintended comedic exposes, or fat-finger events.

Biden? My post is somewhat anecdotal (hence my precept "So I heard ..."). As some of yours have been also, if memory serves.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #195
I think Obama holds the record the most golf days and lying Milty. I'm still looking for those "shovel ready jobs" and waiting for that less expensive health insurance. He also holds the record for the lowest interest rates for a sitting president nearly 8 years at 0%. A very interesting statistic which anyone who visits this site should take particular note of. Obama was ground zero for the markets being addicted to 0% rates. Now the FED has to get things back to normal and it won't end pretty for the markets. This is the calm before the storm and most of the economists and pundits will be sitting around scratching their heads wondering how this all happened.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #199
August 9th 2016
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
milty
  |     |   Comment #203
d_1: There is no question that rates during Obama's administration were the lowest we've seen in decades. But of course this was during the Great Recession, rates actually started going down in 2008, before Obama took office on 2009, guided by the Fed chairman Bernanke. Bernanke kept rates at zero till in 2015, Yellen became Chair and started to raise rates. What I cannot find is proof that Obama ever publicly told Bernanke or Yellen to lower rates, keep them low, or even go negative.
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
Mak
  |     |   Comment #201
milty... as far as golf goes, some people might have forgotten that Obama was president for 8 years, Trump 4 years..... oh yeah facts are useless...;)
Mak
  |     |   Comment #191
Make sure and vote for the republicans, they are out to help you...;)

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...
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #192
Oh Mak stop talking about politics(clutches pearls) you are offending me and hurting my feelings. This is ruining this site and Ken's reputation. lol That was sarcasm btw in case you missed it. Yep that's exactly what you guys do when PD makes a post. I see a few anti-Trump rants too. Seriously Milty is Trump still POTUS? You guys should all be happy you got your way and those mean Trump tweets are gone now. What's the problem? Why so angry?
Mak
  |     |   Comment #193
I'm not angry at all. Did you see that picture of Trump without his makeup on, looks like you might be voting for a corpse...lol
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #196
You did vote for a corpse Mak lol The guy cant even stand up he fell over trying to hold up his bike. He fell UP the stairs. Really you need to stop I'm spilling my coffee.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #194
dep... remember when you said you wouldn't buy the dip... I'm up 15% on what I bought and just booked some of those profits...$e$e
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #197
Yes Mak and what you are doing is called buying high. The FED is hiking rates to levels not seen in decades and you think the time to buy stock is now because the market hasn't crashed......yet. I still have some dividend paying stocks but I bought way low so I'm just holding them for a 12% dividend yield.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #198
Wrong again dep... I bought low and just sold high...lol
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #200
I know Mak and you always win at the casino too. Hey I'm happy for for if you made it in and out with a profit. Good job. Timing the market is difficult which is why I go for dividends.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #202
I told you real time I was buying the dip all the way down to spx 3600 , I don't consider it gambling I considered it a smart move down almost 25%.... now we are almost halfway back from top to bottom so I am selling what I bought. I said halfway back and them well see if it drops, well we're almost there.

Btw, I kind of hope it drops, best time to buy stocks is in a bear market.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #204
Also said buy under spx 4000 because it will recover that area.... who knew???
Sanger
  |     |   Comment #207
Hi deplorable -1 I guess you know they passed a new spending bill over the weekend they are going to hire 87 thousand new IRS auditors I think since mak is doing so well he should be the first to get audited since he is so proud of Joe Biden .
milty
  |     |   Comment #205
I'm just using my right to free speech to debate the opposition. What's the problem with that? Seriously, d1, Trump has never left the building. He's in the news every day, either due to his rallies and campaign raising, or under investigation for civil and criminal charges (not to mention the J6 hearings). But, am not that happy with Biden either . . . so, politically I can't seem to win.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #206
Well milty that's because both parties are just controlled opposition. Trump however was not a part of that system. Sure he ran as a Republican but he never got support of most Republicans and most back stabbed him several times. This is why there was an all out media blitz against Trump from day one. All this was because both parties just wanted him gone at all costs. I just vote Republican as the lesser of two evils as they don't tax me as much on my income. I'm not really all ra ra Republican but if I'm going to vote I'm not voting Democrat. See I voted for Trump and I'm proud of it. I was totally happy with my choice. I would vote for him again without question. You vote Democrat and then say your not happy yet you continue to defend them anyway. Why?
milty
  |     |   Comment #210
Good question. In general, I prefer the Democrat position on issues such as the social safety net, cultural inclusion, and taxing according to one's means. (I would have preferred the TCJA 2017 tax law had it just reduced taxes for those households earning less than $400K.) The Republican party has switched too far to the right with its alliance with the evangelicals and others that prefer to focus on cultural and white grievance issues and ignore other unjust and scientific realities. (I'm not bothered by immigration in general, understanding that folks are looking for a better life, which can possibly be mitigated by local improvements.)

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.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #212
Milty Biden doesn't have rallies because nobody would show up it would be embarrassing. Nobody showed up prior to the election now you would get one guy in a car honking his horn with a mask on. lol
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?
milty
  |     |   Comment #213
I do my own taxes. I know who benefited the most from TCJA, and it wasn't the bottom quintile by any means. The slightly higher standard deduction did not change the 10% bracket, just moved a little more out from being taxed starting at 10%, whereas all the other brackets were lowered.

Breaking News: FBI raids Mar--a-Lago.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #214
Now if only the FBI would investigate Hunter's laptop that they sat on forever and did nothing with. Gee I wonder if there is any corruption over at the old FBI? Naaa that's just another "conspiracy theory" I'm sure. Take 2 blue pills and call me in the morning -Dr. Morpheus ; )
Choice
  |     |   Comment #215
Right…why didn’t the former president have his administration do it? Fake news?  And the results of the earlier Hillary investigation in the 11th hour of 2016 resulted in what? 
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #217
Well that's a really good question Choice it may just have something to do with the administration before him and what he did to the FBI. I mean I'm Sgt. Schultz here I'm just speculating I know nothing....nothing!(please no 3:00 AM raids boys). lol
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.
Sanger
  |     |   Comment #218
Hi deplorable-1 I learned one thing being on this site the people on the left there is no reasoning with then when you state the facts if you think it is bad now you wait when Trump wins in 2024 that is a fact these people will go out their mines .
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #219
Hi Sanger Well I figure if just one person reading might just start to question things and then look into it on their own you never know what might happen. I don't give up too easily I figure eventually logic and facts will prevail. Although some days I wonder why I bother. Only once a month for politics now so not too much time wasted. It's tough to leave politics out of any economic news though I keep trying but that part is rough.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #220
Hey Sanger did you see this EFCU Financial 5 yr. CD? This may be what you are looking for. Not exactly 4% but pretty darn close. Reg rate 3.75% APY Jumbo 100k 3.85% APY and Jumbo IRA 3.95% APY. Now the IRA CD is tax free so I would consider this a 4% plus CD for the IRA special even without the jumbo rate the IRA is 3.85%.https://www.depositaccounts.com/banks/efcu-financial/offers/
Sanger
  |     |   Comment #226
Hi deplorable-1 I did not see that thank you for that information I will look into Wednesday I got home late we celebrated my daughters 21 birthday .
milty
  |     |   Comment #223
Right back at you #218, except those on the right mostly state opinions, seldom facts, and even more seldom substantiated by nationally read reliable references. And that my friend is a fact.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #216
Ok milty now math doesn't lie right? Unless you think that math is somehow politically biased in which case you might want to seek medical advice. Now here is the current standard deduction. Single $12,950 Married filing jointly $25,900. Note the standard deduction is the portion of income you pay 0% Federal taxes on.
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.
milty
  |     |   Comment #228
d_1: Am afraid your math simply doesn't prove this, just stating the standard deductions and 10% tax brackets does not prove your assertion: "The 10% tax bracket was basically eliminated due to the higher standard deduction."

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?
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #236
Milty I'm at the top of the 12% tax bracket married filing jointly. The tax cut benefited me the most on a percentage basis. Do you really think I would vote against my own best financial interests? Am I rich? In that tax bracket? My first 20k tax free the other 60k low tax after deductions and 0% tax on qualified dividends and long term capital gains. I actually make more but Roth and IRA's are tax free income so no need to report it. See If I didn't know how to work the system like I do I would be broke. Are the rich doing better than me? Maybe but certainly not tax wise as they are paying much more than I am as a percentage of income. People who make millions a year are always going to do better than people who don't but that doesn't mean that Trumps tax cut didn't benefit lower earners more on a percentage basis. It most certainly did. And so did the Bush tax cuts btw. This is one of the main reasons people vote Republican because they tax us less. This is a fact. Here these were the tax changes old vs. new brackets. The highest percentage cuts were for the poor and middle class. Sure we have a graduated tax scale so you could say that it also benefited the rich but that small part of their income it's chump change to them. To people like me though it means a big savings.
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/personal-finance/how-tax-reform-impacts-your-tax-bracket-an...
milty
  |     |   Comment #238
Beside paying less in taxes, I thought Republicans weren't in favor of deficit spending, which went up during Trump. Also during Trump campaign, he said,

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.
GreenDream
  |     |   Comment #240
By focusing on $ instead of %, it's you who is trying to cherry pick numbers to your advantage. If I held a gun up to two different people and demanded $10k from them, just by the numbers both are hurt financially the same going strictly by the $ numbers as you do because to you 10k for one must be the same as 10k for the other for your comparisons of just the $ number to be a valid way of looking at it. (if they're not the same than comparing just the $ number between the two is not valid). But if one guy is "rich" and the other "poor", taking that $10k will do more harm to the poor guy then the rich guy because 10k is a much larger percentage of the poor guys finances.

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).
milty
  |     |   Comment #245
That $4975 was a quote from the Forbes article, which notes this is an average. Btw, I repeat how many ended up paying zero due to the new Std_Ded? As usual, you don't substantiate your arguments. I said "By your focusing just on percentages" note it says "just on percentages" NOT percentages never matter. Which is better a 25% raise or a 6.7% raise? A 25% raise may be worth a couple bucks or a couple million bucks. So much depends on knowing more about the issue, such as the base salary. Regarding SALT, plenty of middle class folks got hurt by that, but am guessing you're not one of them. Many states not only have high property taxes to fund the police and education, but also have income taxes to fund infrastructure and help the poor. Add them together and dual income households can easily exceed the cap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/14/biden-tax-plan-salt-deduction-cap/
GreenDream
  |     |   Comment #242
" 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"

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.
milty
  |     |   Comment #244
"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."

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.
uac2
  |     |   Comment #221
It seems like everything descends into useless political discussion. I care about income and making good financial decisions. So my question is….if my goal is throwing as much money as I can into a 4% non-callable 5 year brokered CD. And the prospects of that based on target rate forecasts is iffy. How long can one sit this game out before things start to go into reverse? From what I can discern CD rates should peak and remain relatively static between now and November and after that potentially decline. Any thoughts out there other then who is more incompetent Trump or Biden.
Choice
  |     |   Comment #222
Newbies always welcomed!  Dogs wag the tail. What’s your goal? How does one get there! Believe it or not some retired with sufficient income and focus on capital preservation. The goal “now” is reduction of expenses… which increases income! Focus on the delta…this verses that. Good luck
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #224
Well this is the one and only page where politics isn't censored so that's why. Anyway nobody can answer that question with 100% accuracy but as long as the FED is still hiking the odds of a 4-5% CD increase IMO but you may see a higher rate on 1-4 year CD's rather than 5-7 year and liquid cash could end up being higher than long term CD's at least for a while. The yield curve is slightly inverted. Best to grab an add-on CD if you plan to wait it out just in case like the NFCU 3.3% 33 month CD for example. I think a bit of flexibility may be required this cycle on CD length in order to lock in the best yield. I'll probably wait until the December FED meeting anyway unless a really good deal comes along. It's not like you are losing much waiting there is a liquid account that pays 2.55% APY already at CFG.
lou
  |     |   Comment #225
Deplorable, I don't think in all my years of investing I have ever seen average 5-yr CD rates being lower than 1 yr or less. If the Fed raises rates another 200 basis points, that will bring the Fed Fund rate up to 4.5%. In that scenario, it is almost a certainty that some credit union or bank will have 4% plus rates for their 4 or 5 yr CDs.We should see it by the end of year at least. The only thing that would derail this scenario is if the Fed concludes inflation is not a problem and stops raising rates. I'm betting that doesn't happen.
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #230
That's what I'm thinking Iou but they are cheering on the CPI that just came in at 8.5% instead of 8.7% as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. All because it came down from 9.1% which was the highest inflation reading in 40 years! All because of oil and the fact we emptied out our strategic oil reserves to get the price down. So what happens when that dries up? The price of oil and inflation goes back up with a lag factor. The stock market thinks the inflation dragon has already been slayed. I say stay tuned this rate hike cycle may last longer than people think. I'm waiting for MACU to come up with another 3.5% or better add-on CD or possibly another FI. If I have add-ons no need to lock 0% risk of missing the top.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #234
That could be an opportunity, though. On July 26, the Biden administration announced a wonky- sounding but potentially important SPR policy change:
“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.
sharon907
  |     |   Comment #241
Long-term oil price futures are already above $80 per barrel. Through April 2024.

https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/CL*0/futures-prices
Mak
  |     |   Comment #227
“I once asked, ‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’ Now I know the answer to that question,” Trump said in a furious statement that railed against James as a renegade prosecutor with a vendetta against him.

“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.
milty
  |     |   Comment #229
Mak, you beat me to it . . .

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
deplorable_1
  |     |   Comment #231
So what do you guys get if Trump goes to jail? A Krispy Kreme donut? Oh wait you already got that for your covid shots only one per customer. lol Is that going to somehow improve your life? Will Biden's high inflation disappear? I mean seriously what did Trump do to you guys hurt your feelings or something? I mean good paying jobs, a booming economy, low gas prices and inflation, putting America first instead of last. I mean wow if he was so awful why are his rallies packed with supporters? You guys may be the loudest voices on here but your opinion is in the minority I assure you. You just don't know it because people like me are censored all over the net and many have just given up posting as a waste of time. You should be kneeling at the alter of Biden rather than still complaining about Trump. He must have triggered you guys something awful.
Mak
  |     |   Comment #232
Any excuse to beg for a donation...pitiful

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.”
milty
  |     |   Comment #237
Sung to the tune "I Love a Parade" : I Love a Trump Raid . . . . :-)
Mak
  |     |   Comment #233
I don't care if Trump goes to jail but I do want him to stop lying about the election and creating such division in the country because of it... he and the rest of his loon republicans should shut up about their claims that they have not been able to prove in almost 2 years now and numerous court cases.... no proof, just claims of proof.
Also I don't think Trump should be allowed to run for any political office, ever.
milty
  |     |   Comment #235
"I mean seriously what did Trump do to you guys hurt your feelings or something? I mean good paying jobs, a booming economy, low gas prices and inflation, putting America first instead of last." First, I had all those things before Trump, and putting America first is just Trump's catch phrase. He was and is as much a globalist as the rest of corporate America.
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.
milty
  |     |   Comment #239
I was expected this blog to get pulled instead of continuing like the 2nd season of Russian Doll-- going nowhere. Anyway, what about the Savings and CD surveys, they also rescheduled to monthly?
pelkman
  |     |   Comment #243
Yes, complete WASTE OF TIME talking politics on this board with strangers!  Political partisans on the FRINGE (there are several obvious ones here) will never listen to anybody who does not belong to their universe.

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.
milty
  |     |   Comment #246
It is indeed, but the Trump supporters persist. (Even to the point of attacking Congress and the FBI.)
Federal Reserve, the Economy and CD Rate Forecast - July 26, 2022

The FOMC meeting will conclude on Wednesday with the statement scheduled for release at 2:00pm EDT. Fed Chair Powell’s press briefing is scheduled for 2:30pm ET. Expectations are high that the Fed will announce a 75-bp rate hike.

If the Fed hikes 75 bps on Wednesday, the target federal funds rate will be back to the peak level reached during the last cycle (2.25%-2.50%). That would be about 4.5 months of rate hikes that would equal the three years of rate hikes from 2015 to 2018.

The fast pace of the Fed...

Continue Reading
Federal Reserve, the Economy and CD Rate Forecast - July 19, 2022

The release last Wednesday of the June CPI report, which showed inflation at a four-decade high, had the markets and many economists thinking that the Fed would again increase the size of its rate hike, this time to 100 basis points (bps) at its July 26-27 meeting. By the end of Wednesday, the Fed Fund futures market (via the CME FedWatch Tool) was showing odds of a 100-bp rate hike to be 80%, up from 9% the day before. Those high odds didn’t last. Fed officials started to downplay the...

Continue Reading
Federal Reserve, the Economy and CD Rate Forecast - July 12, 2022

Since my last Fed summary on July 5th, the 10y-2y spread (the difference between the 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields) has been negative. That inversion of the yield curve has added to the worries that the economy is heading toward a recession. Other conditions contributing to this worry include the falling oil and gold prices and a decade low in confidence among small-business owners.

The major economic data for this week is the June CPI that will be released Wednesday morning. The consensus is for an increase of 1.10% (MoM) and...

Continue Reading
Federal Reserve, the Economy and CD Rate Forecast - July 5, 2022

Signs that the economy is heading toward recession grew in the last week. The latest estimate of second quarter GDP was released last Friday by the Atlanta Fed. The estimate showed a 2.1% decline of the GDP in the second quarter. That follows a GDP decline of 1.6% in the first quarter.

Not all economic data is pointing to a recession. As described in this WSJ piece, “economic output is down but the job market is strong, unlike in previous recessions.” On Friday, the Labor Department will be releasing the June...

Continue Reading
Federal Reserve, the Economy and CD Rate Forecast - June 28, 2022

Future interest rates will depend heavily on how inflation and the economy evolves this year. The Fed will want to see a series of declining inflation readings before it transitions to 25-bp rate hikes and then to no rate hikes. That won’t happen before its July 26-27 meeting. Another 75-bp rate hike is likely, and a rate hike of at least 50 bps is very likely.

If the economy is slowing, that could bring down inflation, and that may allow the Fed to transition to no rate hikes and eventually rate...

Continue Reading

More Past Offers