Was It "Hope and Change"? -- Here Are Some Examples of Change

This was sent to me by e-mail, and I assume most of you have already seen it making the rounds. But if you haven't, here are a few selected examples: (item; January 2009 price when President sworn in; "today's" price; and percent change/comment) (some numbers rounded):

Average price of gasoline/gallon:  $1.83; $3.44; almost doubled (Source: 1)
Crude oil, per barrel, WTI:  $38.74; $91.38; Up a whopping 136%  (Source: 2)
Gold, London, per ounce:  $850; $1400;  Up 60%; most of us unaffected (Source: 2)

Unemployment: 7.6%; 9.1%; Up astounding 25% despite billions/trillion in stimulus  (Source 3)
Number of unemployed: 11 million; 14 million; Up astounding 25%  (Source: 3)
Number of long-termed unemployed: 2.6 million; 6.4 million; almost tripled (Source: 3)

Real median household income:  $50,000; $49,777; Down a tad)  (Source: 4)

Number of food stamp recipients (qualifications have not changed:  32 million; 43 million; Up 35%; (Source: 5)

Just in, credit rating: AAA; AA+; downgraded first time in US history (Source: everywhere)

Sources:

• 1: US Energy Information Administration
• 2: Wall Street Journal
• 3: Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Government
• 4: Census Bureau
• 5. USDA

I did not independently confirm these numbers, nor the dates when the data was pulled. If anyone wants the entire list, let me know.

No matter how bad things were during other administrations (the FDR depression, the Carter malaise, the Bush debt), the downgrade in the credit rating ranks at the top for a self-imposed debacle. Even the most ardent liberal, Obama supporter, Maureen Dowd, herself, sees how far "we" have fallen.

By the way, the downgrade appears to be completely self-inflicted. Two of the three rating agencies did not downgrade the credit rating of the US. Only one agency did, the S&P folks. Based on their comments, it is clear the downgrade had less to do with the actual numbers than with the way the process was handled. The president clearly stated several times that if a deal was not made, he could not guarantee that Federal obligations would be met (payments made). He was the only person that was consistently and regularly making that comment, and as president, the comments were all on the record, in public speeches, and very clear. No Senator or representative made those comments. In fact, it turns out, there was plenty of cash on hand to cover all obligations for several weeks, but the fact that the President clearly stated he could not guarantee that the US would pay its bills, forced the S&Ps analysts to say that the US cannot be trusted to pay its bills, at least with a AAA rating.   (Yes, there were some Tea Party folks willing to let the country default but mainstream media did not take them seriously; House reps are so far down the food chain their comments did not matter; and they were talking to their base. The man sitting in the office "where the buck stops" said repeatedly he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would go out and everyone knew that was a boldfaced lie. But if the president of the US says he can't guarantee payment of US bills, how can one give his government AAA rating?)

One has to wonder if Tim Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, helped write those Presidential speeches, or if Geithner knew those comments were baiting the rating agencies. Regardless, one agency, the S&P, took the bait.

Comments are disabled for this post.