U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 05, 2011 05:20 PM UTC

Markets Recovering From Yesterday's Terrifying Sell-Off

  • 85 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: Dow ends up 61 for the day, but Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating to AA+ from AAA spells uncertainty for Monday:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade…

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently…[i]t appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. [Pols emphasis]

—–

UPDATE: So much for that “rally”–Dow down 204 points as of 10AM.

—–

If you haven’t yet checked your investments are yesterday’s 500-point plunge, you might want to wait until the closing bell today–it could be a little better for your blood pressure. CNN:

Employers added 117,000 jobs last month, well above the 46,000 jobs added in June, and easily topping the 75,000 gain predicted by economists surveyed by CNNMoney.

Weak job reports for both May and June were revised higher, adding a combined 56,000 jobs for the year.

Businesses were busy hiring, adding 154,000 workers in the month, topping forecasts of 100,000 new jobs. But those gains were tempered by a loss of 37,000 government jobs, mostly from state and local governments, where budget shortfalls led to layoffs in July, especially in Minnesota where the government was briefly shut down…

In just the last week, data on consumer spending, manufacturing, job cuts and gross domestic product have all raised concerns that the slowing economy could fall back into recession. Major stock indexes have lost 10% of their value in the last two weeks amid growing worries.

But these welcome better jobs numbers, albeit still hampered by public-sector job losses, flipped market futures into positive territory today. It could be short-lived optimism, though–the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the recent debt-ceiling compromise will result in some 1.8 million more lost jobs by 2012 due to public sector job loss and the loss of extended unemployment compensation. If that makes you think maybe the United States has been obsessively focused on the wrong problem…it looks like you might be right.

Tweet
Share

Comments

85 thoughts on “Markets Recovering From Yesterday’s Terrifying Sell-Off”

  1. At this moment the markets are flat again.

    Rich Guy is pissed that his portfolio has fallen far more than any taxes heВґs saved from his Bush tax cut.  HeВґs not happy that heВґs making nothing on his bond and money market investments either. Even the Swiss are starting to screw him.

    Rich Guy is starting to think that a real jobs program might be a good thing after all.  

    2. there’s probably at least another dozen ways to screw the middle class that the Republicans haven’t thought of foisted upon us, . . . yet.  You may not see it right now, but you and yours are going to come out this double dip just fine . . .

      [Bouncy] — Gray skys are gonna clear up, put on a happy face;

                     brush off the clouds and cheer up, put on a happy face . . .

      1. Dow was down as far as 123 points a few minutes ago – now up to:

        DOW 11,318.71 -64.97

        NASDAQ 2,522.95 -33.44

        S&P 1,189.59 -10.48

        Bumpy ride. Jobs data is good and usually news like that gives a nice bounce but still tons of pessimism I guess.

      2. For them, it’s stocks on sale.

        When the market eventually recovers, they’ll own even MORE of America, further increasing the divide between rich and poor.

    3. Dow up a measly half percent, NASDAQ down another one percent.  Ouch.

      And the geniuses at S&P are about to rate US securities lower than some corporations.

      And job numbers are anemic even before the new debt deal that will eliminate, not create jobs.

      We really are  living in a world of stupid is as stupid does.

      We need a jobs bill now.  And we need to mail checks to everyone for the payroll tax reductions and Making Work Pay credits they are getting so they will spend the windfalls we are giving them and stimulate demand.

      1. http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…

        Not that I’m taking any solace in that.

        United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P

        http://www.reuters.com/article…

        The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor’s on Friday in an unprecedented reversal of fortune for the world’s largest economy.

        S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about the government’s budget deficits and rising debt burden. The move is likely to raise borrowing costs eventually for the American government, companies and consumers.

        “The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics,” S&P said in a statement.

        2. We’ll see.  Remember, these are the clowns who thought you could bundle a bunch of crap no doc mortgages and then they suddenly became high grade investment instruments.  Now they want to play politics.

          Their slam at ellbee, I mean stupid GOPers, for not willing to raise revenues is certainly correct, but it’s politics nonetheless

          Which companies now have a higher rating than the US, and how large are their printing presses?

          1. seemed to think it was a big deal.

            It’s funny that they gave up everything to save the hostage, and we still killed the hostage. If I were still a Dumbocrap I would have found this somewhat frustrating.

          2. Namecalling is always the sign of a strong argument.

            S&P execs’ donations have favored Democrats in recent cycles.

            Now, your homework is to find a post in which I called you a name.  Good luck.

            This seals the 2012 election, IMO.  Obama will be known as “The first President who presided over a credit downgrade of the U.S.”  Pretty simple.  Well, that and ‘Fast and Furious’.  That gets worse by the day, and Issa has the pen out on Subpoenas.

            A final PS? (Just for contrasts’ sake):

            AUSTIN – Standard & Poor’s (S&P) has raised Texas’ issuer credit and general obligation credit ratings to AA+ from AA based on the state’s strong and diverse economy and strong leadership from the governor and Legislature that has left a projected $9 billion in the state’s Rainy Day Fund. S&P also raised its rating on the state’s appropriation debt to AA from AA-.

            Not that we’d see any kind of ad around that in an election…

  3. Market not recovering, and 193,000 people stopped looking for work which is the only reason the rate dropped.  The increase in jobs barely covers working-age population expansion.

    Hey, look on the bright side – Obama created twice as many donors as he did jobs in the second quarter…

    2. -John Boehner

      /attempts to pass right-wing social engineering bills

      //makes no attempt whatsoever to pass anything resembling job legislation

      Laser focus!

      1. Hey, I’d settle for a freaking budget.  What, 827 days now?  Nice effort, Mr. Reid.

        And when you’ve lost Ariana Huffington…

        But the point is that the most important number going into 2012 is going to be the unemployment number. And there is absolutely no prospect at the moment that would make us believe that unemployment number is going to be below nine percent. Now that is really the greatest fear for the White House. And of course Mitt Romney again and again is talking about the failure of the President to produce jobs, and he doesn’t have to tell us how he would have done it. He just has to point out to that failure. And when the President again and again talks about how, I mean, I went through and looked since 2009 how many times he has said, “Jobs priority number one,” “The sustained focus of this administration,” “The relentless focus of this administration,” “We’re pivoting to jobs.” Nobody believes it any more.

        1. Paris Hilton isn’t hiring any more beauticians and Charlie Sheen can only some many prostitutes at one time.

          Maybe one day Republicans will concede that Trickle Down and Deregulation have been economic disasters and let the country try some different economic policies.

          I’m personally tired of reading how the rich will shower us with jobs if we only give them everything they want.  What a failed policy and of course Republicans will blame Obama for extending the Bush tax giveaways and letting this insane Trickle Down policy failure to continue.

            1. Every benefit disproportionately goes to the wealthy.

              Every cost disproportionately impacts the middle class.

              It also fails to address the major reasons the debt has expanded so quickly:

              Bush tax cuts,

              Medicare PartD,

              Unfunded wars.

              1. Could you be more specific in your analysis?

                This sure doesn’t fit in with your class warrior points, IMO:

                True tax reform that removes loopholes while lowering tax rates is the Holy Grail of social policy. It appeals equally to left and right because, almost uniquely, it promotes both economic efficiency and fairness. Economic efficiency – because it removes tax dodges that distort capital flows (and thereby diminish productivity) while cutting marginal tax rates (thereby spurring growth). Fairness – because a corrupted tax code with myriad breaks grants deeply unfair advantage to the rich who buy the lobbyists who create the loopholes and buy the lawyers who exploit them.

                1. this is all gonna change somehow, right?

                  . . . deeply unfair advantage to the rich who buy the lobbyists who create the loopholes and buy the lawyers who exploit them.

                  Sorry, Ellbee, you snooze — you lose!  While you were lolling in St. Tropez(?), SXP replaced you as the funniest Polster here.

                2. Sure.

                  The part that you quoted sounds great. No problems there, recognizing that the devil is in the details.

                  But that’s just step 1 of 3 steps.

                  Step 2:

                  The real money is in the popular tax breaks: employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

                  So, the wealthy, and their defenders, always point out that the wealthy pay disproportionately more in taxes than the middle class. (The poorest Americans pay no income tax, so these deductions don’t apply to them.) Health insurance, mortgage, and charitable contributions are a greater proportion of incomes for the middle class than the wealth – therefore deductions for same benefit the middle class more than the wealthy.

                  Step 3: Entitlement reform.

                  That means raising the Medicare and Social Security ages, indexing them to longevity (until 70 becomes the new 65) and changing the inflation formula. Perhaps even means-testing Social Security (after one has recouped what one originally paid in).

                  The wealthy do not benefit much from entitlement programs, compared to the middle class or poor. All of CK’s solutions cut benefits. None of them raise revenue. Hence the burden falls on the middle class and poor. Yet, it is widely cited (I’m sure it’s easily googled) that one way to make social security solvent is to remove the income cap on contributions. And remember, it’s SSI: the I is Insurance. social security is more than a pension fund. Hence, not everyone will recoup what they put in (which I surmise really chaps CK’s hide).

                  And finally, decreasing the top tax rates is truly a gift to the wealthy (as proved by the Bush tax cuts). Middle class tax rates just aren’t that high, because these are the marginal tax rates (rates paid on your last dollar, not your first). You don’t pay any tax on your first dollar.

            2. I didn’t see anything in it about curbing health care costs.  If you want to contain the entitlement programs without creating death panels then you still have to find ways to bring down the rise in health costs.

              The one thing that I think he throws out as a given that I question the assumption that lower tax rates spur growth.  Not a given in my book.

              I don’t think he mentioned reducing defense and reaping another peace dividend.  He was one of the chickenhawks who demanded that we invade Iraq to protect Israel and now he seems to have amnesia that he advocated for missing WMD and Halliburton contracts.

              I have to say that I’m happy that a deal got done.  People can criticize Obama for “caving” in and “losing” but his position along has been that it is “our” problem and “we” need to work together to find practical and equitable solutions.  We would have all been losers if the two sides couldn’t come to a compromise.  It think the process of reconciliation will ultimately be more important then the eventual legislation.  We all need to work together to sacrifice and find ways to employee our citizens and leave our children a maintainable financial future.

        2. Obama has caved to the right on virtually every economic issue–aside from only moderately capitulating to them on health care reform.

          If we had actual deficit reduction, or a real attempt at stimulus from government spending, then we would be seeing a stronger recovery. Unfortunately, the President (wrongfully) believes that he will have a better chance at being re-elected if he imposes the economic policies that the Republicans (who will never give him any credit for it whatsoever) are proposing.

          He’s probably going to lose, and it will be because  unemployment, but it won’t be because of the reasons you’re making it out to be.

          Of course, you don’t give a shit WHY the recovery has been shitty. You’re just content to pee your pants with glee at the fact that the shitty jobs numbers (great in comparison, but truly awful in the scope of what the country needs) like the ones that came out today keep on dooming Obama.

          Don’t worry, though, elbee. Any Republican who gets elected will simply be continuing the same exact policies that have been the status quo for the past 11 years, thereby continuing to doom our economy further. But, of course, you’ll be crying foul when the Democrats are the ones enjoying the political ramifications of a sputtering economy in 2015-16.

    3. Nobody is more concerned about unemployment than me, but your numbers overestimate the problem.

      96,000: number who went Galt

      84,000: number who are lazy

      102,000: number who decided to stay home with the kids instead of destroying the family

      Still, in summary, we need a tax cut. If I had lower taxes, I’d think about hiring someone to manage all the extra money I wouldn’t otherwise know what to do with.

    4. what’s responsible,kiddo.  Obama definitely among the enablers allowing your sides disastrous job killing, midddle class strangling policies to continue.  Didn’t see anything from you for a while. Were you away having fun?

      2. Thanks.

        The money is sitting on the sidelines because they don’t want it taken from them.  There’s too much uncertainty about regulation and tax increases, and people that have worked hard for their money don’t necessarily feel like making the government a partner in their endeavors.

        1. I’m tired of fighting with you.  I’ll adopt my Uncle Carl policy. No matter how screwy his black sheep (in my family) ultra conservative views may be, I know he loves me and would not stop to think for a second before rushing into a burning building to save me (retired Firefighter and still in good enough shape to do it) so we just discuss other things. Would love to hear about your vacation, the weather, etc.

        2. The only thing that’s been uncertain about taxes is how many more and how much larger those tax cuts for the rich and wealthy corporations will be.

          “Let’s see, should I hold out for another 10% tax cut, or maybe 15%? — ah, hell with it, this uncertainty is unbearable!  I’m tired of worrying about whether I’m ultra-wealthy, or merely mega-wealthy.  Fuck it, I’m done.  Jimmy, book the corporate jet for Dubai today, and pack the hookers and blow, and dammit get the good stuff this time, huh?  I need a break, I deserve a break . . .”

          1. both Bush Presidents, the spectacular mushrooming of deficit under Reagan with a Dem, Clinton, inexplicably providing the break between those Rs during which we had a great economy, middle class prosperity jobs jobs jobs following a tax hike and the deficit turned into a surplus. In upside down, inside out land I guess the Clinton years sucked compared to all that utopia provided by Rs.

            Even if  it must be admitted that they didn’t suck, of course. we mustn’t forget that Reagan and the Bushes deserve no blame for anything that occurred on their watches (well it’s OK to blame read my lips Senior a little for raising taxes and Jr for spending too much but not for tax policy.  Reagan remains the saint)) and that Clinton deserves no credit for anything on his.  

            That’s how upside down, inside outness works. Without it, how on earth could righties believe a word of what comes out of their own mouths? But you’ve got to hand it to them.  For decades they’ve managed to get Dems to buy into it enough to campaign on being more like them instead of insisting on a return to, you know, reality based, proven successful policy.

            You know what Dem pols?  These are the damned droids you’re looking for. Please stop them.

            1. “As cigarette smoking has been shown to increase the rates of lung cancer,” he writes “so the presence of a Republican in the White House increases the rates of suicide and homicide.”

              The cause: policies. In Gilligan’s view, the policies of Republican administrations increase socio-economic distress which has all sorts of ramifications that lead to higher rates of murder and suicide, while Democratic administrations reduce socio-economic distress which aids the psychology of the masses and brings down the levels of violence.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

              1. Financially , things got better for us every Clinton year.  Since the dark days of Bush, it’s all pretty much gone to hell. At our age that’s pretty damned depressing.

                1. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell the rest of you. The problem you’ve been having is not being rich. This should give you an extra motivation to get yourself a lot of money. We tried to make “being poor” feel rather crappy so you wouldn’t do it, but apparently we didn’t do a good enough job. Oura culpa.

                    1. fucking “job creators” now, . . . duh!  (The only thing I find surprising about his comments is how adept the folks in Bangalore have  finally become at American vernacular.)

                    3. …and much more predictable as a leftie.  Plus, I really miss the profanity.

                      Are you on some kind of probation from cursing, or is it a life change?  Because, quite honestly, very few people I’ve ever read can curse as satisfyingly to me as you did, even when it was aimed at me.

                    4. sxp has never been better. He puts the rest of our feeble attempts at entertainment to shame.  Go sxp!  

                    5. And those truths about the GOP’s class warfare really sting, don’t they?


                      Just as bad as ignoring how we got here, we risk missing the story of precisely where the GOP wants to take us. In the coverage of the game (Will Boehner find the votes? Will the Tea Party really drive us off a cliff? Will Eric Cantor lead a revolt?) we sometimes neglect the substance of the proposals. Just what kind of country do the Republicans seek to build? Instead of seeing it as a bargaining chip, perhaps we should treat the GOP proposal as a serious governing document.

                      What the GOP seeks is a banana republic: a toxic blend of right-wing populism, anti-intellectualism, debt defaults, and an end to the ladder of economic opportunity.

                      Bob Greenstein, the widely respected president of the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has done just that. His conclusion:

                      The Boehner-GOP plan is “tantamount to a form of ‘class warfare.’ If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.”

    5. Republicans got 98% of what they wanted. Investors decided that it’s a recipe for recession. Layoffs due to cuts in govt spending are going to crush consumer spending, killing demand for goods and services.

      And before you go off about jobs, remember this: Corporate profits are at all time highs at the same time unemployment is north of 9%.

      IF employers thought that demand for their goods and services was going to rise soon, they’d be hiring by now. They’re not. Investors know this. The market is tanking.

      Hope you don’t plan on retiring soon.

  4. Public sector jobs are overhead, similar to renting retail space to display your products.  If it were not for the private sector creation, public sector jobs would not be needed. If you create more public sector jobs than needed, you are suffering from excessive overhead.

    2. caused by climate change resulting in more severe weather events in intensity and duration.  Then your public sector service of saving our environment and our communities is actually a critical service which will allow for sustained societies which will help our economy.

      By your calculation then we should get rid of our military because it is unnecessary “overhead”.

      “We don need no stinkin guvment except for controlin women folk.  Corporations will do ever thing better.  Corporations are our new parents.”

      You’re such a short sighted dick Mark.  

      1. Honestly, Gray, I haven’t the slightest idea what you mean by this, but count me in. It’s those blue uniforms, I guess. Maybe the handcuffs? 🙂

    6. That’s such a wonderful sentence, G, because it’s circularly impossible to dispute: if you have more of X than you need, that’s excessive.

      “If I eat more food than I need, I will be eating excessively” — that’s as true and circular a statement as yours. The problem is that, standing alone, a statement that “more than you need is excessive” doesn’t prove you need to cut the amount now.

        2. buildings that don’t fall down, food that’s safe to eat, medications that are safe to use, police protection, national security, workplaces that don’t routinely kill workers, air that won’t routinely shorten lives, air traffic control systems that get you to your destination alive, education available to help kids who foolishly picked the wrong parents improve their lives, stuff like that, are all your ideas of optional “overhead” frills, Markie boy?  Guess you think resisting taxes on principal is well worth condemning most of us to short brutal lives.  You’d love Somalia. Send us a postcard.

    8. Jeeeeeeesuuuuus, Mark . . .

      If it were not for the private sector creation, public sector jobs would not be needed.

      . . .  you realize you just said that public service jobs are needed?

      You’re so far off the fucking reservation right now, you’re risking permanent revocation of your Palin/Bachmann/Cain secret-message-decoder-and-membership-card.  Can’t be happy with just parroting the information you received today?  Gotta show the world you’re some kind of genius, independent thinker?

      Right now — Take a deep breath, publicly apologize and tell the whole world you have no idea WTF possessed you to utter such idiocy, swear to Rush you’ll never do it again, say twenty sincere “Hail Michelles,” and maybe — just maybe — you’ll get invited to another tea party some day.  (And, shape up, son — there’s really no excuse for this kind of transgression.  And, remember, we’re keeping our eyes on you . . .)

        1. You all missed the point, without private entrepreneurship first; there would be no need for government overhead second.   Now that you have the order correct, we can start talking about near total privatization of nearly all services currently provided by gov.

          BTW Bachmann wants to control your womb, something I do not because this would require more overhead and it would also prevent welfare people from killing their babies which would lead to more welfare. Don’t ever call me a Bachmann follower. Palin is a goof. Her voice is so shrill; I stopped listening to her years ago. Herman Cocaine is way cooler than both those goofy broads however I do not support him either because I am positive he is way too social conservative for my preference.

          Look harder, Libertarians are 180 from both Democrats and Republicans.

                1. I kind of understand “Republicrats,” it sounds a little cute, but “Demicans” is what a lazy mind says when ordinary laziness has gotten too demanding. You Libertarigreens need to work a little harder on your terminology.

          2. Anarchist!!!!   Blasphemer!!!!   Heretic!!!!

            You said it again — “. . . need for government . . .”

            You were warned, fool.  May Rush have mercy on your puny soul . . .  

            1. Listen Polsters. To say that a service currently provided by gov should instead be returned to the private sector is no insult or denial of responsibility. To the contrary, the service being provided is so valuable it would indeed survive in the private market place. The real question is as follows. Since the service could survive in a voluntary environment, then why has gov been granted or commandeered this particular service?

              1. If you call charging many times more for services the military used to provide, crappy work, including zapping our guys in showers and “losing track” of billions a bang up job.  

    10. All jobs are “overhead”. So are most garage doors. Do you have any points besides the ones at the ends of your painted salon “real-nails”? How the fuck can you even manage a keyboard with those things?

  7. It’s difficult, especially for the myopic Republicans to grasp this significance. Hell, it’s even difficult for me.

    $2.1 trillion in market value was wiped off the MSCI All Country World Index this week as of Thursday’s close

    http://theautomaticearth.blogs…

    The truth is, except for the 4000 year old country called China, and the approximately 3000 (not willing to put an exact date here) year old India (The U.S. on the other hand…..), most countries are in a world of hurt (pun intended).

    It’s gonna take a miracle. The miracle will be getting the Republican Party to understand it’s not a spending problem. Shit. We’re fucked.

    Whenever I, as a very successful businessman, wanted to grow something…. I invested. I NEVER retreated.

    The Republicans are a party in retreat. Pathetic and stupid.

    2. For many years we’ve had a fantastic garden — spent lots of time and effort planting, irrigating, tending, etc. — and, usually always, reaped a fantastic and abundant harvest.

      This year I decided to cut back and pretty much pulled everything out of the garden except for our perrenial, and volunteer, herbs . . . . can anybody spare a brother a tomato?

      1. for “tax cut for your boss and hope for the best,” then hey, here you go.

        Otherwise you can take your hippie garden crap to Siberia where they’d appreciate it.

      2. But if you can use some turnips, Italian green beans and zucchinis, zucchinis, zuchinis, drop by and I’ll happily provide a “teabagger victory” care package.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

48 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!