Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Jan '13 20:33
    ...and Obama blames Republicans.

    Fed Keeps Stimulus Amid Signs of Weak Economy
    CNBC.com | January 30, 2013 | 02:34 PM EST
    The Federal Reserve, saying economic growth had "paused" in recent months, announced Wednesday it will continue its $85 billion monthly bond buying and hold interest rates near zero until unemployment falls to at least 6.5 percent.

    The central bank decision, which followed a two-day meeting, had been widely expected, especially after a surprising decline in U.S. economic growth for the fourth quarter.

    Earlier Wednesday, the government announced that GDP unexpectedly suffered its first decline since the 2007-09 recession, falling at a 0.1 percent annual rate after growing at a 3.1 percent clip in the third quarter. (Read More: GDP Shows Surprise Drop)

    Markets showed relatively little reaction to the GDP report, in part because it reinforced expectations that the Fed will continue to provide stimulus as long as the economy is weak. Stocks were slightly lower after the Fed decision. (Read More: Stocks Listless After Fed Decision)

    "The report, noisy as it is, may help ease ideas that has surfaced earlier this month that the Fed may look to soon pull back from its asset purchases," wrote Marc Chandler, chief currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman. (Read More: Why Markets Aren't Worried About Bad GDP)

    The minutes of the last Fed meeting in December showed that some Fed members thought QE should end this year, a comment that helped send interest rates higher this month.

    In its statement, the Fed said the slowdown in growth was largely because of weather-related disruptions and other temporary factors. It noted that employment continues to expand at a moderate pace, consumer spending and business investment increased and the housing sector showed further improvement.

    The central bank also said strains in global financial markets have eased somewhat, but cautioned that risks remain.

    The statement was approved on an 11-1 vote. Esther George, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, objected. George expressed concerns about the risk of higher inflation caused by the Fed's aggressive policies.

    Last month, the Fed signaled for the first time that it will tie its policies to specific economic barometers. It said that as long as the inflation outlook is mild, it could keep short-term rates near zero until unemployment dips below 6.5 percent from the current 7.8 percent.

    The Fed also said it would continue its bond purchases until the job market improved "substantially."

    When it buys bonds, the Fed increases its investment portfolio and pumps more money into the financial system—something critics say could eventually ignite inflation or create dangerous bubbles in assets like real estate or stocks.

    On Friday, the government will release its jobs report for January. The unemployment is expected to remain 7.8 percent.

    That still-high rate, 3 1/2 years after the Great Recession officially ended, helps explain why the Fed has kept its key short-term rate at a record low near zero since December 2008, just after the financial crisis erupted.

    Still, some private economists think the Fed will decide to suspend its bond purchases in the second half of this year. They note that the minutes of the Fed's December meeting revealed a split: Some of the 12 voting members thought the bond purchases would be needed through 2013.
  2. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    30 Jan '13 20:47
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    ...and Obama blames Republicans.

    Fed Keeps Stimulus Amid Signs of Weak Economy
    CNBC.com | January 30, 2013 | 02:34 PM EST
    The Federal Reserve, saying economic growth had "paused" in recent months, announced Wednesday it will continue its $85 billion monthly bond buying and hold interest rates near zero until unemployment falls to at least 6.5 perce ...[text shortened]... Some of the 12 voting members thought the bond purchases would be needed through 2013.
    I know you are eager for any little grain of bad economic news under President Obama to try to prove he's done a lousy job, but If you look a little further the reason for this drop is primarily because of a decrease in government spending, mostly in the defence sector due to the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Republicans would normally be very happy about this because it's reducing the size of government. Naturally, the GOP has twisted this story into a bad news senerio simply because it happened on Obama's watch. (Gee...what a suprise!)
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Jan '13 21:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    I know you are eager for any little grain of bad economic news under President Obama to try to prove he's done a lousy job, but If you look a little further the reason for this drop is primarily because of a decrease in government spending, mostly in the defence sector due to the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Republicans would normally be into a bad news senerio simply because it happened on Obama's watch. (Gee...what a suprise!)
    I'm not saying it's not out there, but I'm not aware of a statement Republicans made blaming Obama. Obama, on the other hand, marched Jay Carmey out to the Press Room to blame Republicans. So it would appear that the opposite of what you said is true.

    I want the nanny state to shrink. I want Big Brother to shrink. I want the number of overpaid fat-assed federal workers to shrink. I want business to be less regulated and allowed to create good jobs.

    Is that too much to ask?
  4. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    30 Jan '13 21:52 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I'm not saying it's not out there, but I'm not aware of a statement Republicans made blaming Obama. Obama, on the other hand, marched Jay Carmey out to the Press Room to blame Republicans. So it would appear that the opposite of what you said is true.

    I want the nanny state to shrink. I want Big Brother to shrink. I want the number of overpaid f ...[text shortened]... business to be less regulated and allowed to create good jobs.

    Is that too much to ask?
    So...you want the nanny state to shrink, good idea. Let's start with all those billions of tax dollars in subsidies going wealthy oil and mining companies, the bailout billions going to banks that are "too big to fail," the fat cat defence contractors with their "cost plus" agreements that allow them a blank check to bilk the government as soon as the contract is inked. Let's take a long, hard look at all this corporate welfare before we demonize some unemployed guy on food stamps who's job was outsourced to China.

    You want business to be less regulated? As I recall "W" did that from 2001-2009. Remember what happened? Banks and mortgage co's wrote mortgage loans to anyone who could breath, then sold these toxic assets to anyone with cash, while the newly deregulated rating agencies rubber stamped AAA ratings on everything. This crashed the housing market and the economy. As a realtor, I assure you we'll be picking up the broken pieces of this mess for a long time to come....and you think a return to this policy will create jobs?? You need to wake up and smell the coffee my friend! You're not the guy who has to sit in peoples living rooms 3-4 time a week and explain to a family that everything they've worked for for 17 years is about to be forclosed on by a bank, because the attempts to get them a short sale were rejected, and why? Because it's very profitable for a bank to enrich itself off the misery of others. Reality check...your friends at Fox News don't always get it right. Business's need to be governed just like people do.
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    31 Jan '13 00:45
    Originally posted by bill718
    So...you want the nanny state to shrink, good idea. Let's start with all those billions of tax dollars in subsidies going wealthy oil and mining companies, the bailout billions going to banks that are "too big to fail," the fat cat defence contractors with their "cost plus" agreements that allow them a blank check to bilk the government as soon as the contra ...[text shortened]... s don't always get it right. Business's need to be governed just like people do.
    I think everything in that first paragraph makes sense. All good ideas.

    If you're a realtor, then you know what "liar loans" and "ninja loans" are, right? Maybe saw a few of them yourself? Nobody put a gun to those people's heads and made them falsify information on loan applications. One Barney Frank leaned on banks heavily to relax their lending standards, and tied the relaxation of those standards to oversight policies. The Federal Reserve also kept money cheap, causing people to to borrow more than they should.

    A lot of people of both political persuasions made a lot of bad choices and decisions. I did not, and I won't apologize for having weathered the storm.
  6. 31 Jan '13 01:27
    Originally posted by bill718
    I know you are eager for any little grain of bad economic news under President Obama to try to prove he's done a lousy job, but If you look a little further the reason for this drop is primarily because of a decrease in government spending, mostly in the defence sector due to the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Republicans would normally be ...[text shortened]... into a bad news senerio simply because it happened on Obama's watch. (Gee...what a suprise!)
    CNBC isn't exactly a bunch of GOP toadies.