Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No he cannot. The President cannot make Fed policy nor overrule any Fed policy.
And neither can Congress.
The Fed operates INDEPENDENT of the US Government.
This would be an easier argument. Obama knew who he was when he appointed him. If he wasn't for the path that Bernanke had already laid out, he could have appointed someone else. He also appointed a Treasury Secretary that is all on board also. He could have appointed one that would have been a thorn in the Fed's side.
Quote:
Oh..so now sequestration is no big deal ?
LOL..tell that to the WH administration that are still telling the press about all the doom and gloom scenarios that are right around the corner or even happening today that really aren't.
I do not speak for the WH. You asked my opinion and that has been my opinion from the very beginning. I have pointed out the stupid statements of the WH over and over.
And? Unemployment is stagnant. Wages are stagnant. Growth is all but stagnant.
These four things do not go together. Wall street does not thrive with these other three happening unless someone is intervening. That would of course be the Fed.
I imagine this post will get ignored just the same as every other time I point this out.
The best indication that the Fed's bond-buying purchases are pushing stocks up artificially is that investors run for cover whenever there is a hint that the Fed might change course, as happened recently. On Monday, billionaire superinvestor Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett told CNBC that markets are on a "hair trigger" waiting for signs of change from the Fed. The market is "hooked on the drug" of easy money, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher told Reuters.
So...we're back to where we were in 2007....is that what is now called progress? A lost 6 years.
On the bright side,it's pretty obvious that the financial markets think that some minimal sign of fiscal responsibility on the part of the fed government is a good thing. I agree. Imagine if we had made some actually cuts in spending!
It was a legit question. You noted that there was opportunities in housing. I note that there are still houses being repossessed and that the banks are sitting on a ton of houses. Any gains in housing right now are small.
What should I do with these houses when the banks decide it's time to dump, the Fed realizes it can no longer prop up the markets and things fall again?
So...we're back to where we were in 2007....is that what is now called progress? A lost 6 years.
Yes, after 2007 came the collapse of 2008, and sotck market recovery begun in early 2009, so it is a lost four years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
