So a few more thoughts:
For starters, why did S&P downgrade our debt?
In other words: the deal wasn't big enough. I feel that this goes right back to the point I made earlier in the thread. The deal needed to be 4 trillion. Why weren't Democrats willing to sign a bill that involved 4 trillion in cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling raise?
It will be very interesting to see how this fits in with everything else that has been happening. I have been told that this happened to Japan, and that there wasn't much of a reaction when it did. Still this sort of thing just changes the whole mood of the market.
I just hope people can keep everything straight. I'm seeing a lot of people trying to blame recent market action on the debt ceiling fight. This is complete hogwash. This has everything to do with Eurozone worries, and fundamental data that indicates the global economy is slowing. Similarly we can't really blame this on Obama. I still think he's done damage to our economy, and is largely responsible for our weak recovery. However, if we go into another recession I don't think it's entirely his fault. Of course he'll still get the blame. The president has to accept responsibility for what happens under his watch, even if he's not the cause.
I'd also like to get into the spending cuts vs revenue generation debate. The following study claims that based on a historical analysis of countries with debt problems, spending reductions are more likely to be successful. I like this article because most arguments about this subject have focused on what is fair and reasonable. I want to discuss what is effective.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44035766