1999 Or 2008 All Over Again?

Via Pension Pulse.

On Sunday morning, I watched an interview on CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley (see video below or click here
to watch it). The interview was on the US economy and the guests
were two two former directors of the Congressional Budget Office,
Alice Rivlin who's now a Brooking's expert, and Doug Holz-Eakin, president of DHE Consulting, LLC.

Not
surprisingly, both Ms. Rivlin and Mr. Holz-Eakin were talking about
cutting spending, especially entitlement spending, but they also
addressed the impact that the crisis in Japan and the Middle East unrest
are having on the global economy. At one point, Candy Cowley asked
about the recovery in the US economy. Here is part of the exchange taken
from the show's transcript (added emphasis is mine):

CROWLEY: Alice Rivlin and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, thank you both so much for joining me.

You know, every time we watch the stock market, the analysts say,
well you know, the oil did this and, therefore, the stock market's done
that. What is the net effect of what's going on in the world -- I
know the markets don't like things that aren't settled, but what about
just every day living, you know, in America, looking for a recovery
that is still sluggish?

Japan, has that affected the recovery at all? And how about Libya and the Middle East in general on oil?

RIVLIN: Well, nothing is going on is good -- Japan, Libya,
whatever, the high price of oil and gasoline, all of these create
uncertainty and to some extent a drag on the economy, especially the
price of gasoline and oil.

But none of it is major yet. Your
intro emphasized all the things that might be bad, but the good news
is the economy is perking along, not fast enough, very weak hiring,
very weak in housing, but the rest of the economy does seem to be
coming back slowly but steadily.

CROWLEY: But what -- can
you really have a recovery with -- in a housing market, we keep saying
the housing market hit bottom. Oh, the housing market has hit bottom.
So now we've gone to the lowest ever in new home sales which are the
most important, because they provide jobs in building, et cetera. Can you really have a recovery without a recovery in the housing market?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: There are two pieces to the housing recovery. The first is construction of new homes. And there we've seen the housing market go from just a really drag on the economy to about neutral.
It's not adding or subjecting from growth at this point. The
second piece is the value of homes, which affects deeply how families
feel about their futures and their ability to spend. And there I think we're about to see the worst end. But until both of those start moving north, we're not going to see a really robust recovery.

CROWLEY: Because it undermines consumer confidence, right?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Absolutely.

CROWLEY: And what about hiring and gas prices? Isn't there some
connection there? If I'm a business and suddenly my energy costs have
come up whether it's a business that involves trucks or a business that
involves heating or air conditioning in the summer, doesn't -- isn't
that a drag on hiring people?

RIVLIN: Yes. For some
businesses, it is. The main effect is that consumers who have to buy
gasoline will spend less on other things. So it's a drag from that
sense. And for some energy intensive businesses as well.

But we don't have as many of those as we used to. We're not as dependent as an economy on energy.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: I think there are three lessons on the oil and gas
front. Lesson number one is we have oil at $140 a barrel in 2008. And
it went down not because we somehow discovered a lot more oil. No,
it went down because we went into a massive global recession. As
economies recovered, it was inevitable that prices were going to rise.
And this was utterly foreseeable.

Second piece is that
Libya's not really the concern. That's not what markets are pricing.
It's the broader Middle East. Libya is 2% of oil supplies. That's
not our problem. It's what happens in the rest of the Middle East.

And the third is, something like this is always going to happen.
There is always some piece of bad news out there. So, the key should
be to build an economy that's growing more robustly, it's more
resilient to bad news that inevitably will happen. And there we could
do better.

We've seen calls for more pro-growth strategies
this week from Eric Cantor, for example, and it really is time to get a
strategy that is about having the economy grow faster.

CROWLEY: And so what I take from you is, yeah, around the margins this
isn't great for the economy. However, when you look at the current
state of the economy, the sluggishness of recovery, what worries you
most?

RIVLIN: What worries me most, and I suspect Doug as well, is our looming debt crisis. We've got to get past this squabbling over the federal budget for this fiscal year. That's just a squabble. But
what is really important is that we're moving into a period when we
will have debt rising rapidly because of the retirement of the baby
boom generation and high medical care costs. And we've got to do
something about that. It's got to be bipartisan, and we've got to do it soon so that we reassure our world creditors that we're on the job.

CROWLEY: Doug, can you just -- I think people know intrinsically
the debt is a bad idea, and when they hear trillions and trillions,
it's an even worse idea. But can you connect debt to my life, to the
life of the viewers?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Sure. If we continue down the path we're going down, in the good-news scenario, what we see is interest rates start creeping up and then elevate sharply.

That
means that, if you want to buy a car; if you want to buy a house; if
you want to send your son or daughter to college, it's a very expensive
proposition.

It also means that the place you work
can't invest in the upgrades it wants to and it really can't start
giving you raises because they're carrying costs of their debt. So you
see an economy that starts to stagnate, where you don't increases in
the standard of living, and everyone suffers from that. And it goes on
for a long period of time. That's the good news scenario.

The
bad-news scenario is we see 2008 all over again, where credit freezes
up and we get a sharp recession. Neither is something we should mess
with.

CROWLEY: I was going to ask you, I mean, can
you -- if the crisis remains a crisis and Congress can't get its act
together nor do something about it, which I'm assuming is for you all
cutting spending, perhaps raising taxes, some -- you know, combination
thereof, could we have a worse recession than we have just experienced?

RIVLIN: Yes, we could definitely have what's called a sovereign
debt crisis. We used to think that only happened to small countries on
other continents, but it could happen to us as well.

That means we would not be perceived as able to get our act together and pay our debts. And our creditors would lose confidence in us. And when that happens, things go south very fast.
We could have a big spike in interest rates, a big fall in the dollar
and be plunged into a worse recession than the one we're climbing so
slowly out of right now.

Let me comment on this
exchange. First, as I stated above, given their background and
ideological views, it hardly surprises me that Ms. Rivlin and Mr.
Holz-Eakin are sounding the alarm on US debt and entitlement spending.
But to claim the US might suffer a sovereign debt crisis is simply
ridiculous. The US is the largest economy in the world by far, it prints
the world's reserve currency and the risk of a US sovereign debt crisis
lies somewhere between zero and zero. All the doomsayers will tell you
otherwise but that's a fact.

As far as entitlement spending "run
amok," we need some perspective. These aren't pension liabilities of
state plans where it's difficult to cut benefits, they're entitlement
programs that are based on current spending and are subject to political
decisions. If they need to be cut or reformed, and if there is
political will to do it, US Congress will take action.

Ms. Rivlin
also dismissed rising energy prices, stating that "we're not as
dependent as an economy on energy." That may be true but oil prices
still matter. Rising gas prices are going to hammer consumer confidence and
are ultimately deflationary, not inflationary for the economy,
something that analysts keep omitting.

That brings me to Mr.
Holz-Eakin's comments on housing, interest rates and another sovereign
debt crisis. On housing, Mr. Holz-Eakin sounds more sanguine than
others, stating that new homes construction is no longer a drag on the
economy and that the he sees an end to the drop in home values. But
others aren't convinced that housing is stabilizing. Diana Olick of CNBC
recently wrote a comment on why housing is going through a double dip, citing these reasons:

1. Supply supply supply. Too much. Can't overstate that.
2. Foreclosures.
   Banks are pushing properties through the foreclosure process at a
   really rapid pace now. I'm also hearing they may be ramping up sales
   ahead of any settlement with nation's attorney's general over the
   so-called "robo-signing" paperwork scandal. More foreclosures on the market means more supply and more price pressure.
3. Gas prices: See yesterday's blog post. It's real.
4. Mortgage applications. They are way below historical norms. All cash buyers in February rose to a record 33 percent of all buyers of existing homes. Many many Americans simply can't qualify for a mortgage anymore at a reasonable rate.
5. FHA: Next month the cost of an FHA loan goes up yet again. FHA loan volume dropped 26 percent in February month to month.
6. Consumer sentiment: Awful. No confidence in this market. Only the investors are out in droves, looking for and getting bargains. We need them, but we need real buyers as well.

Mr.
Holz-Eakin also noted that they see "interest rates start creeping up
and then elevate sharply". If that happens, it will kill any recovery
in the housing market. But I just don't see rates rising sharply for two
reasons. First, the Fed's policy remains reflate and inflate at all
costs to avoid a prolonged period of debt deflation. They will continue
with quantitative easing (QE) which will cap long-term bond yields.
Second, without a robust housing and more importantly jobs recovery, the
risks of deflation remain elevated. I simply cannot understand all
these doomsayers who see hyperinflation on the horizon. Why? Because oil
prices are rising again? Again, if they rise too high, too fast, it's
ultimately deflationary for the US and global economy.

Mr.
Holz-Eakin also stated that he sees "2008 all over again, where credit
freezes up and we get a sharp recession." But to see 2008 all over
again, you need a catalyst, perhaps a major sovereign debt crisis. The
doomsayers will tell you look no further than Greece and the Eurozone,
but as I wrote in my last comment, I'm not buying the drama.
There are serious structural problems in the Eurozone, but to claim
that a major European default is a "done deal" is way too easy.
Importantly, when everyone is on the same side of the trade, shorting
the sovereign debt of European periphery economies, then I start
questioning the merits of that trade.

It's also worth keeping in mind all the macro events that rocked markets
over the last year or so, starting with Dubai, Greece, PIIGS, and more
recently Japan. In every case, markets were able to climb the wall of
worry and head higher. This doesn't mean that it will continue or that
some serious sovereign default or geopolitical crisis can't rock the
global financial system again, but it speaks volumes to the amount of
liquidity out there ready to soak up any major macro event.

This brings me to my final point on another bubble forming in the stock market. Earlier this week, Dave Kansas of the WSJ reported that Red Hat Jumps Higher After Strong Earnings:

The remarkable return of hot 1990s-era hot stocks continues (think JDS Uniphase, Ciena, Micron et al) this morning with Red Hat.

The
open-source software company is surging more than 13% out of the gates
following strong fourth-quarter earnings after-the-close yesterday
afternoon.

Oppenheimer (Outperform rating): “While we were
pleased to see the company deliver strong results across the board, we
were particularly impressed with RHT’s ability to deliver over 30%
billings growth and over 20% growth in cash flow from operations ($95.0
million).” Oppenheimer says, and backs an outperform rating.

Robert Baird raised Red Hat to outperform from neutral.

As Matt reported earlier, Micron is jumping more than 6% after reporting its own earnings.

Among other highfliers, JDSU and Ciena are up about 2%. Maybe it is the 1990s again.

Semis,
networking stocks and materials have been on fire following the
earthquake disaster in Japan. Earnings have been strong but there is a
lot of hot money flowing into these sectors too, making them very
volatile. It all looks and feels like the reemergence of the tech
bubble, a point covered by Jameson Berkow of the Financial Post, Bootup: Experts warn of Internet bubble 2.0:

Today
in technology: With a number of new web firms expected to make public
stock offerings this year, observers are growing concerned the market
could be headed towards another bubble; Canada’s first offshore wind
farm project wins a key victory in the regulatory process; the inner
workings of the computer hacker group known as Anonymous are exposed
and Research in Motion Ltd. along with several other Waterloo,
Ontario-based tech giants are looking to recruit more Canadian talent.

Is Silicon Valley ‘on tilt’ again?
Noted financial commentator Paul Kedrosky
used a poker metaphor on Friday evening to explain why the Internet
industry is about to do the same thing it did back in the spring of
2000, when the first dot-com bubble burst and an estimated US$6-trillion in shareholder value vanished. He offers a Top 10 list
of reasons why that could soon happen again, among them being the
extreme popularity of conferences such as South by Southwest (SXSW), or
the fact that private valuations are approaching public valuations
(i.e. privately-held Facebook has reached valuations as high as
US$65-billion).

Steve Blank, a professor at Stanford University’s
engineering school and at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, has
gone so far as to publish New Rules for the New Bubble.
Unlike the last Internet bubble, writes Mr. Blank, the next one will
involve “real” companies with real revenue and masses of real customers.
Facebook, LinkedIn, Skype and Groupon are all examples of firms
expected to launch IPOs in the next year or two, and all have displayed
an ability to earn money and maintain a strong customer base. “But like
all bubbles, these initial IPOs will attract companies with less
stellar financials, the quality IPO pipeline will diminish rapidly, and
the bubble will pop,” Mr. Blank cautions.

I
would also caution people to avoid chasing stocks that run up too high,
too fast. There is a lot of liquidity spurred by hot money, hedge funds
and banks engaging in high-frequency trading, mutual fund flows, pension flows,
sovereign wealth fund flows, and last but not least, retail investor
flows (they're always the last ones to the party and typically get
slaughtered). Tread carefully, these markets may appear easy but if you
become complacent and ignore risks, you'll get killed.

I will however tell you that I feel like we're heading towards another
1999 rather than another 2008. Call it a gut feeling but I look at the
stock market every single day, tracking unusual volume and which stocks
and sectors are making new highs. I also study the quarterly holdings of
top hedge funds and mutual funds. Right now, I see the "Risk On" trade.
Will it last? Will it be in tech or so will it be in some new bubble
like renewable energy? Who knows? All I know is that the liquidity party
will continue on Wall Street for the foreseeable future, which is why I
continue to advise people to keep buying the dips.

Comments

[monopoly]

I think Leo is right here. I have not shorted this market with gusto in 18 months, and when I did take a  shot at it I usually have a loss. Liquidity will keep this market moving for now. Maybe for a few more months if interest rates, the dollar or inflation do not take over.

But it will end, when the truth be known, and when it does I do not want to be long anything except gold. And I really do not play the market anymore. It is rigged, you cannot follow a trend day to day without getting whipsawed. For me, just not worth it.

[AN0NYM0US]

Leo you have been more accurate in your bullishness than all the bears here combined. As long as Benny keeps printing the markets will keep rising.

good article here

Bank of Canada warns on capital flows, prices

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCATRE72P19C20110326

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

That's inherent in the points of view themselves: the bull says that markets will go higher indefinitely, while the bear says that the market is being artificially inflated and will therefore come crashing down catastrophically.  The bull is right for a period of time, and the bear is finally right for one disastrous instant.  The bull (likely slaughtered, and those who weren't secretly knew the bears were right and profited from the collapse), can (and always does) say that he was "right" every day for a long time, while the bear was right only once, probably by luck or with the twice-daily accuracy of a stopped clock.

[YouBetYourLife]

I have one word for you, and it's not "plastics."  Are you ready?  

"Zimbabwe"

They printed a lot of money out of thin air, and golly gee, their stock market went up, too.  Nominally, of course.

Perhaps you've seen some of their attractive, colorful 100 trillion ZB dollar notes:

http://www.glabarre.com/item/Zimbabwe_100_Trillion_Dollar_Note/6506

[AN0NYM0US]

it will end badly but since 666 a lot of bears have been mounted figuratively and literally

[gorillaonyourback]

play with fire you gonna get burnt,  its like musical chairs last one standing wins in the early rounds cuz your playing a game that wins worthless fiat money.  what is the the harm in taking your winnings and running?  oh yeah thats right your a greedy piece of shit that by your action (participating in the nonsense) prolongs the inevitable

[YouBetYourLife]

Yes, and I've had my share of pain by going short (but also made nice amounts going short). Obviously, sensing when to go short or long is the key.

But the landscape has changed dramatically since March 2009. This is no longer a "market" where true values can be ascertained.  It's a game, and unfortunately I'm forced to play it as such when I choose to play it - which is tough because TPTB don't tell us "ordinary folks" the rules. 

Sometimes it seems the odds are better of hitting the pinata blindfolded.

[TexDenim]

Yeah,  this is a definite scenario that could evolve, especially because it is NO ONE's radar (except ZH). I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the S&P500 explode ahead for some dumb reason that will seem to make sense at the time but will be revealed to be yet another financial scam or hoax or bubble.

[knukles]

Ah hah!
Business as normal!

[Bicycle Repairman]

" What we see is interest rates start creeping up and then elevate sharply.

That means that, if you want to buy a car; if you want to buy a house; if you want to send your son or daughter to college, it's a very expensive proposition. "

Doesn't that also mean that the stock market crashes.  Retirement savings and pensions evaporate. Sovereign debt payments explode. And people think about running a new flag up the ole flag pole?

[Leo Kolivakis]

Mr. Holz-Eakin doesn't make sense. On the one hand, he sees housing stabilizing and recovering, and on the other interest rates spiking! Also, you're right, if interest rates shoot up, it's game over for the stock market, which is why the Fed will stand on guard for more QE. As for pensions, it's bad for assets (most of their assets are in equities) but good for liabilities because a higher discount rate lowers the present value of future liabilities. Net effect though is negative, which is another reason the Fed won't let rates spike up (expect more QE).

[TBT or not TBT]

Don't forget infinite ZIRP!

Re rates spiking up, the Fed doesn't have full control of those Leo, just the short end.   Onthe short end, of course, the treasury is piling up the debt in front of them analogously to a snowplow that throws all plowed snow back ahead of the blade.    They're selling on the short end because that's where rates are low, but it cannot last.

[eddiebe]

Totally stands to reason.

[Pseudo Anonym]

edit: deleted. double post.

[Pseudo Anonym]

Alright all you Zero Hedge bears, time to weigh in on my latest comment...to claim the US might suffer a sovereign debt crisis is simply ridiculous

ok. I get it.  you're kidding.  that was a good one.  But for the rest of ZH that dont get your humor, you might want to put a disclaimer at the end of your missive that you're playing with them.  Or else, prepare yourself for a lot of abuse.

[AN0NYM0US]

Leo is the most abused contributor here I think - and for the most part he is probably one of the most accurate. (it's tough being a bull in a bear's den)

[homersimpson]

Yes he's quite accurate.. just like Stevie Wonder can drive..

[akak]

Leo has only been accurate to the extent that one can equate the effects of a declining fiat currency (rising nominal prices) to real gains in value.

In his many other contributions, in which he has advocated, nay, demanded that we all surrender all hope of ever reforming the corrupt and parasitic financial and monetary systems under which we are enslaved, and explicitly argued for our abject obedience to the sociopathic power elites who continue to run amock and destroy civil society in the process, he has demonstrated himself to be the worst and most vile kind of collaborator and apologist for evil.

[AN0NYM0US]

thanks for the repsonse to my comment as it validates my point about the abuse Leo is subjected to

while I agree he is a pragmatist I am not sure I would characterize him as "the worst and most vile kind of collaborator and apologist for evil".

I would be interesting in hearing your description of Benny and friends

[nmewn]

"while I agree he is a pragmatist..."

My eyes must be failing...I didn't see where akak said Leo was a pragmatist.

[AN0NYM0US]

if you have read Leo you would know

as for akak, his response to mine is telling... enough said

I am no apologist for our resident Greek Canadian or is that Canadian Greek, but give him his due, he has called this market correctly against the herd of bears that populate ZH and continued to cast his pearls

[traderjoe]

Ask Leo how his long Greek bond position/recommendation is doing (at around 8% 10-year yield).

[akak]

Not to mention some of his much-vaunted Chinese solars, lol:

http://www.tickerspy.com/newswire/?p=4167

[Leo Kolivakis]

We'll see who gets the last laugh...

[akak]

as for akak, his response to mine is telling... enough said

Indeed it was --- which is perhaps why you evaded responding to it.

If you believe I am wrong in condemning Leo for his advocacy of corruption and willing subservience to a criminal power elite, then say so.

[AN0NYM0US]

nothing personal bird, but my point was your taking the time to write a second treatise on the 'evil'  LK while claiming a  timeout on the bernank. I am no fan of Leo (espcecially his progressive politics) but the guy has been correct. If you could provide an example of your charges I have an open mind. But I think it is safe to say Leo is the most accruate forecaster at ZH and one of the smartest.

[bigkahuna]

Typically a lot of the people who post here have done research and came to the conclusion that the open market in stocks, bonds, or whatever financial instrument sold by wall street or the US gov't or any otherwise "un-real" asset are unsafe. In addition to that, there is no free and open market. It is rigged. When these guys (fed and otherwise) decide to pull the plug, you and Leo are finished. Come back after that happens. Anyone who advocated the purchase or accumulation of the unreal unsafe assets is going to be scrutinized at the least and ridiculed at the most. If your guy, Leo was more of a precious metal type, he would not only be advocating a safer class of investment, he would likely be better received in these discussions (and he would make more of his precious FRNs to boot).

[akak]

I am no fan of Leo (especially his progressive politics) but the guy has been correct. If you could provide an example of your charges I have an open mind.

No offense to you, but I am hardly inclined to spend hours researching the many execrable and outrageous comments of Leo, especially as many of the worst of them were so vile that they were junked into oblivion by similarly disgusted fellow ZH posters.

I am sorry if you have not been here long enough to have seen some of the truly disingenuous, cynical, morally disgusting comments of Leo's, but rest assured that his recent contributions here have been but a pale shadow of the contemptibly pro-Establishment, pro-corruption, pro-Fed propaganda that he routinely and frequently spewed in this forum.

But I think it is safe to say Leo is the most accruate forecaster at ZH and one of the smartest.

Leo may be "smart", but what he may make up for in intelligence he more than lacks in wisdom, honesty, ethics and integrity.   And I laugh at your assertion that he has been "the most accurate forecaster at ZH".  But then again, it is difficult and tiresome to keep track of the movements of a weathervane during a hurricane.

[akak]

I would be interesting in hearing your description of Benny and friends

I'm afraid I have neither the time, nor the stomach, to fully express my views regarding "Benny and friends" at the moment.

I am not sure I would characterize him as "the worst and most vile kind of collaborator and apologist for evil".

But I would, the reason being that he acknowledges the monstrous crimes and gross corruption of our political and financial elites, yet not only suggests that we "play along", even while being raped, for the crumbs that might thereby fall from our master's laps, but he DEMANDS that we do so with eyes wide open, for the most cynical and short-sighted of reasons.  It is due to such shallow, cowardly and blinkered venality that our wealth and our societies are crumbling around us.

But I am by no means alone in my assessment of Leo --- the fact that many of his reprehensible posts on ZeroHedge have been (justifiably) junked into oblivion by dozens of other members here speaks for itself.  Why his statist, pro-Establishment blatherings are even given a forum here is a mystery to me, when virtually everything he writes is directly contrary to the whole anti-elitist, pro-honesty, pro-transparency, pro-free-market spirit of this website.

But I guess if one is going to employ a pot-stirrer, it helps to employ one who is able and willing to supply an abundance of shit to fill said pot.

[masterinchancery]

+100

[TBT or not TBT]

Ditto on the statist accusation. 

[akak]

But to claim the US might suffer a sovereign debt crisis is simply ridiculous. The US is the largest economy in the world by far, it prints the world's reserve currency and the risk of a US sovereign debt crisis lies somewhere between zero and zero. All the doomsayers will tell you otherwise but that's a fact.

Leo, you are so absolutely full of shit in your blinkered, statist, pro-fiat, pro-Establishment arrogance that any further response to your crap is unworthy of my time or any serious consideration.

Your first step towards monetary enlightenment, however, will come (if it ever comes, which I doubt) when you realize that the US dollar's status as a world reserve currency can, and eventually will, prove to be as much of a curse to the USA as it was formerly a blessing.

[Snidley Whipsnae]

Leo is full of shit? Absolutely full of shit??

I second that!

Leo has become used to watching POMO bouy markets and assumes that this FED money printing racket can continue to infinity...NOT!

[Leo Kolivakis]

I guess POMO has pummelled your short positions!

[Vampyroteuthis ...]

Leo, I am surprised they allow you to still write for ZH. I hear CNBC has an open slot.

[Leo Kolivakis]

I was disappointed to find out Cramer recently went long solar stocks. CNBS has no business peddling my investment ideas!

[akak]

Birds of a feather ....

[Zero Govt]

Leo long solar stocks... hilarious:))) ...well they can't go to zero right?

And US Govt default a "zero, zero"... like California, Illinois and New York just ain't happening ...like Timmay saying his own budget is "unsustainable" and like the US Govt aren't already right up to their scrawny necks in debt

So you're backing an uneconomic and expensive means of energy and the most bankrupt Govt on the planet ....ZH's resident loser strikes (out) twice

[akak]

Leo is such an amusing yet outrageously clueless and antagonistic shill for everything corrupt and unsustainable about the status-quo, that if he did not exist, ZeroHedge would have to invent him.

Or did they?

[akak]

Unfortunately, Leo's moobs are not the kind of cleavage that they are looking for on CNBC.  Too bad, as his abysmal investment advice and lack of any ethical standards make him otherwise eminently qualified for the position.

http://azurejim.com/gallery2/d/89-2/moobs.jpg

[akak]

Leo, you are such a shallow and contemptible authority-worshiping piece of shit.

[Diogenes]

The US is already in a sovereign debt crisis. Whoever wrote and contributed to the original article, is living in a dream world.

[nmewn]

Brookings Institute...LOL.

They did a wonderful job of pinning down the true costs of ObamaCare...oh, wait...never mind ;-)

[masterinchancery]

Yes, brookings and rivlin, 2 utterly worthless govt shills.

[knukles]

Cost? What cost?
We wuz told ObamaCare wuz gonna save money.

[nmewn]

Exactly...we just weren't told who's money would be saved ;-)

My costs went up 20%...as predicted.

There was also some nonsense about creating jobs with it's passage...as with the bailout of tenured university professors, state & local governments under the guise of a "jobs stimulus bill", it's very apparent what fox is minding what chicken coop these days.

[TBT or not TBT]

More than a 1000 public and private entities have saved money under Obamacare by receiving presidential "waivers" permitting them to...IGNORE THE LAW.     It is astonishing a federal court hasn't already stomped on this administration for such practices.   This country was founded to be ruled by law, not by particular men.    Equal Protection Under The Law is a selectively applied principle.   Lawlessness.

[nmewn]

"It is astonishing a federal court hasn't already stomped on this administration for such practices."

They have...federal court rulings are ignored by the administration, FOIA requests are ignored (or so heavily redacted as to make them meaningless), the law is ignored. 

It (their law) becomes meaningless...so be it...it is nothing without us anyways.

As you know, progressives/statists/leftists have a weird sense of law...they think it is magical...it is not.

[akak]

Dare you question the wisdom and the motives of the Obamessiah, taxpayer blessings (and funds) be upon him?

[RoRoTrader]

If you are right, Leo and the markets break above recent highs the DAX looks like it has a LOT of room to run.

Top pick for an equity index if it is 'risk on'.