President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1169

On November 04 2012 05:35 johny23 wrote:




The problem is people that talk about conspiracy's and people that deny them both over hype them. I mean seriously how hard is it to believe at the very least that some very powerful people manipulate markets, fiat currency and other things to earn an unwarranted, immoral or even illegal profit. You really think that the system was created (or at the very least manipulated over time to benefit a select few of people?) The more amazing argument thing would be if that WASN'T the case.

The people that act like "conspiracy's" are such a big deal and impossible are just as crazy as people that believe EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

On November 04 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:


SECRET congress.

And this is getting into International Banking Conspiracy crap...

On November 04 2012 05:29 DoubleReed wrote:


SECRET congress.

And this is getting into International Banking Conspiracy crap...

On November 04 2012 03:37 Risen wrote:


This is the reason. Not the media, not Romney as a flawed candidate. It's the idiots in the party itself. The Republican party will evolve (hopefully) and be back in 2016.

On November 04 2012 04:45 coverpunch wrote:

This is quite a series of mischaracterizations.

Ben Bernanke has been insistent that quantitative easing was a necessary and vital policy to stave off disaster and kick off growth, and he's been forced to admit subsequently after each round that its effect has been smaller than he thought and MUCH smaller than economic theory has suggested. Which he already knows because he spent the 90s criticizing Japan for doing too many rounds of QE. It doesn't work. The banks aren't asking for liquidity but for some reason the Fed is giving it to them anyways.

Stimulus is NOT the answer. Who the hell is the government going to give money to? People who can't afford their standard of living? That's a moral hazard. Companies that lose money? That's stupid and crazy. Companies that make money? Maybe, but companies that make money already get money. People that can afford their standard of living? Possibly, but that's a hard sell to the public (see, tax cuts).

Interest rates that are low isn't an indication that the government has a blank check to create massive debt. There are many different reasons why that can happen. If you don't see the folly in that, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near debt, especially not debt that you want other people to help pay off. If a debt crisis comes, we won't see a long period of warning signs, it will be a sudden massive ballooning of the problem.

How effective are balance sheet policies? After nearly four years of experience with large-scale asset purchases, a substantial body of empirical work on their effects has emerged. Generally, this research finds that the Federal Reserve's large-scale purchases have significantly lowered long-term Treasury yields. For example, studies have found that the $1.7 trillion in purchases of Treasury and agency securities under the first LSAP program reduced the yield on 10-year Treasury securities by between 40 and 110 basis points. The $600 billion in Treasury purchases under the second LSAP program has been credited with lowering 10-year yields by an additional 15 to 45 basis points.12 Three studies considering the cumulative influence of all the Federal Reserve's asset purchases, including those made under the MEP, found total effects between 80 and 120 basis points on the 10-year Treasury yield.13 These effects are economically meaningful.

Importantly, the effects of LSAPs do not appear to be confined to longer-term Treasury yields. Notably, LSAPs have been found to be associated with significant declines in the yields on both corporate bonds and MBS.14 The first purchase program, in particular, has been linked to substantial reductions in MBS yields and retail mortgage rates. LSAPs also appear to have boosted stock prices, presumably both by lowering discount rates and by improving the economic outlook; it is probably not a coincidence that the sustained recovery in U.S. equity prices began in March 2009, shortly after the FOMC's decision to greatly expand securities purchases. This effect is potentially important because stock values affect both consumption and investment decisions.

While there is substantial evidence that the Federal Reserve's asset purchases have lowered longer-term yields and eased broader financial conditions, obtaining precise estimates of the effects of these operations on the broader economy is inherently difficult, as the counterfactual--how the economy would have performed in the absence of the Federal Reserve's actions--cannot be directly observed. If we are willing to take as a working assumption that the effects of easier financial conditions on the economy are similar to those observed historically, then econometric models can be used to estimate the effects of LSAPs on the economy. Model simulations conducted at the Federal Reserve generally find that the securities purchase programs have provided significant help for the economy. For example, a study using the Board's FRB/US model of the economy found that, as of 2012, the first two rounds of LSAPs may have raised the level of output by almost 3 percent and increased private payroll employment by more than 2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred.15 The Bank of England has used LSAPs in a manner similar to that of the Federal Reserve, so it is of interest that researchers have found the financial and macroeconomic effects of the British programs to be qualitatively similar to those in the United States.16

To be sure, these estimates of the macroeconomic effects of LSAPs should be treated with caution. It is likely that the crisis and the recession have attenuated some of the normal transmission channels of monetary policy relative to what is assumed in the models; for example, restrictive mortgage underwriting standards have reduced the effects of lower mortgage rates. Further, the estimated macroeconomic effects depend on uncertain estimates of the persistence of the effects of LSAPs on financial conditions.17 Overall, however, a balanced reading of the evidence supports the conclusion that central bank securities purchases have provided meaningful support to the economic recovery while mitigating deflationary risks.

Source: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm

In a hard-hitting 2000 paper titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?” Bernanke declared that “far from being powerless, the Bank of Japan could achieve a great deal if it were willing to abandon its excessive caution and its defensive response to criticism.” He proceeded to lay out a number of actions the Bank of Japan could take. And he called on Japanese policy makers to act like F.D.R. and do whatever it took: “Japan is not in a Great Depression by any means, but its economy has operated below potential for nearly a decade. Nor is it by any means clear that recovery is imminent. Policy options exist that could greatly reduce these losses. Why isn’t more happening? To this outsider, at least, Japanese monetary policy seems paralyzed, with a paralysis that is largely self-induced. Most striking is the apparent unwillingness of the monetary authorities to experiment, to try anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work. Perhaps it’s time for some Rooseveltian resolve in Japan.”

Bernanke had some specific proposals that could serve as advice for the Fed today. One set of options would have it take a larger role in financial markets. Short-term interest rates may be zero, unable to go lower, but longer-term rates aren’t. So the Fed, which typically buys only short-term U.S. government debt, could expand its portfolio, buying long-term government debt, bonds backed by home mortgages and so on, in an effort to drive down the interest rates on these assets. This is the strategy that has come to be known, unhelpfully, as quantitative easing.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-listen-to-professor-bernanke.html

On November 04 2012 05:35 johny23 wrote:




The problem is people that talk about conspiracy's and people that deny them both over hype them. I mean seriously how hard is it to believe at the very least that some very powerful people manipulate markets, fiat currency and other things to earn an unwarranted, immoral or even illegal profit. You really think that the system was created (or at the very least manipulated over time to benefit a select few of people?) The more amazing argument thing would be if that WASN'T the case.

The people that act like "conspiracy's" are such a big deal and impossible are just as crazy as people that believe EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

On November 04 2012 05:38 DoubleReed wrote:


Wow. Everything about what you just said is exactly how conspiracy theorists talk.

Congrats on separating from the sheeple.

On November 04 2012 03:40 ZeaL. wrote:


I dunno man. The game plan seems to be "when in doubt, shift to the right".

On November 04 2012 05:42 johny23 wrote:



Do you live in paradise or something? By what you're saying, I gather you think it highly unlikely that people would abuse or manipulate a system for their own gain. LOL.... You seriously made me laugh at loud. I can't believe this is even a conversation that needs to be had. Jesus...

On November 04 2012 03:40 ZeaL. wrote:


I dunno man. The game plan seems to be "when in doubt, shift to the right".

Low interest rates are not an excuse that the government should spend on every project it sees. Low interest rates indicate that it will be easier to find profitable opportunities, but IMO the government should leave that to private individuals. If you think otherwise, we can have that discussion but it's a difference of opinion.

On November 04 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:


only for the idiots in the party

On November 04 2012 05:49 oneofthem wrote:
the fed is now simultaneously evil and having too little impact. it is more charmeleon than mitt. impressive.

why not though, after all, in many cases you are just providing the financing to other private individuals. having the whole thing fall even further will cause severe damage, like in spain and other places.

Low interest rates are not an excuse that the government should spend on every project it sees. Low interest rates indicate that it will be easier to find profitable opportunities, but IMO the government should leave that to private individuals. If you think otherwise, we can have that discussion but it's a difference of opinion.

On November 04 2012 05:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:

the phenomenon of Republican self-hatred for it's own base is not only remarkable, but extremely unhelpful. I don't know if you are Republican, but this comment exemplifies the attitude perfectly, and I've heard it a lot recently from the more moderate Republicans.

I think it's rooted in things like Ford being the most hilariously bad choice when you think about the conservative base, who wanted Reagan. Reagan's success and Ford's failure are pretty interesting examples that run against the perception that shitting on conservatives is a good political move for Republican politicians. ask George H.W. Bush what happens when you compromise on your word and run against your base. ask the House Republicans the 1930s to the 1990s what happens when you make compromising your strategic goal. you build a minority mindset and you give false legitimacy to the other side's agenda and ideology. Eisenhower did more for making the New Deal the norm than FDR ever did. Nixon did more for the normalizing the positions of the modern Democratic party than Johnson ever could have. even Bush can stand as an example: a soft-conservative. he would be perfect sometimes, and then he would completely fail by trying to appeal to people whose entire agenda was to discredit and destroy him.

the irony I feel in having Democrats lecture me about civility to the President, or in being obstructionist, is only eclipsed by the satisfaction I have in knowing that I've been inoculated to their hypocrisy. if the left doesn't think turnabout is fair play then they can keep sacrificing real life for the fantasy they've invented, and conservative's will still be here, pointing out the truth. we haven't moved to the right, ya'll let Obama push you to the left.

either way, this election will be the big decider. I say the American people will deserve whatever they pick. if they want Fast&Furious, Benghazi, "great" unemployment numbers of 7.9%, imprisoning film makers, an Al Qaeda takeover of Mali and Libya, a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the Middle East, a belligerent Iran, a beleaguered Israel, and high taxes, then I say "let 'em have it." conservatives should pull an Ayn Rand and say "Peace out" if Obama wins and let the car go flying off the cliff because apparently we like being the whipping boy for our government.

if Obama wins it's not the conservative's fault. we offered a real alternative. everyone else either went along for the ride willingly or asked to be dragged along for the benefit of a pittance. funny thing is, as much as I'll be washing my hands of it if he pulls of the miracle of miracle's and does actually win, you won't find me crying and pointing fingers. I'll just shrug and start thinking about 2014. dollars to dimes, it'll be the establishment Republicans and moderate Independents that put him office twice that'll be the one's screaming and crying.

but like I said, it doesn't matter. Romney is decently ahead in the swing states, with more than a comfortable enough lead to be confident about a win. the Senate is up in the air, but a jump ball was always the best shot we were gonna get so I'm not worried too much. polls that presuppose a higher Democrat turnout in 2012 than in 2008 should be flat out ignored for a reason.