THIS is the oBAMA ECONOMY...

[007]

There is no "economic recovery" folks, that is flat out, a LIE. We are in DEEP, DEEP, SHIT... and it's all coming to a close soon. We will experience catastrophic economic devastation of biblical proportion, and it will happen on obama's watch...



$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton


(CNSNews.com) - The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.

Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.

As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.

$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton | CNS News

 

[Ava]

There is no "economic recovery" folks, that is flat out, a LIE. We are in DEEP, DEEP, SHIT... and it's all coming to a close soon. We will experience catastrophic economic devastation of biblical proportion, and it will happen on obama's watch...



$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton


(CNSNews.com) - The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.

Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.

As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.

$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton | CNS News

If we don't stop Obama's spending by picking up seats in the Senate in `14, we are indeed screwed! Think of all the policies he would go forth with, if not stopped. His goal of crippling the economy would be on faster-forward....

 

[007]

There is no "economic recovery" folks, that is flat out, a LIE. We are in DEEP, DEEP, SHIT... and it's all coming to a close soon. We will experience catastrophic economic devastation of biblical proportion, and it will happen on obama's watch...



$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton


(CNSNews.com) - The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.

Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.

As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.

$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton | CNS News

If we don't stop Obama's spending by picking up seats in the Senate in `14, we are indeed screwed! Think of all the policies he would go forth with, if not stopped. His goal of crippling the economy would be on faster-forward....

Indeed, and I do believe wholeheartedly that that is obama's intention. He is carrying out his master's orders, George - "what we need to see is the systematic devaluation of the American dollar" - Soros, that's the only thing standing in the way of their NWO. They must first bring the American economy to it's knees.

 

[007]

This is what this country TRULY needs to see happen...

 

[oldfart]

There is no "economic recovery" folks, that is flat out, a LIE. We are in DEEP, DEEP, SHIT... and it's all coming to a close soon. We will experience catastrophic economic devastation of biblical proportion, and it will happen on obama's watch...

Is it possible for you in one thousand words or less to state an actual economic argument to back up your post? Your source doesn't attempt it, so I guess you will have to give us a clue.

 

[007]

There is no "economic recovery" folks, that is flat out, a LIE. We are in DEEP, DEEP, SHIT... and it's all coming to a close soon. We will experience catastrophic economic devastation of biblical proportion, and it will happen on obama's watch...

Is it possible for you in one thousand words or less to state an actual economic argument to back up your post? Your source doesn't attempt it, so I guess you will have to give us a clue.

You can't be for real... are you truly this STUPID?

You have ZERO to say about the article... which IN ITSELF is much more than a "CLUE" that the FED is PROPPING UP the economy, and when they QUIT, the stock market will crash like nothing we have ever witnessed before in history.

Couple that with the MIND NUMBING DEBT, of which soon we WON'T EVEN BE ABLE TO PAY THE INTEREST ON, and you have TWO things that are coming to head soon that either/or spell CERTAIN DISASTER for our economy. There IS - NO - RECOVERY going on, PERIOD, that is a COMPLETE LIE. Our GOVERNMENT is SEALING OUR COFFIN with it's OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING and QUANTITATIVE EASING.

My GOD man... WISE THE FUCK UP.

 

[oldfart]

There is no "economic recovery" folks, that is flat out, a LIE. We are in DEEP, DEEP, SHIT... and it's all coming to a close soon. We will experience catastrophic economic devastation of biblical proportion, and it will happen on obama's watch...

Is it possible for you in one thousand words or less to state an actual economic argument to back up your post? Your source doesn't attempt it, so I guess you will have to give us a clue.

You can't be for real... are you truly this STUPID?

Oh, I'm for real. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you have proved that you are an idiot (who also apparently can't read).

You have ZERO to say about the article... which IN ITSELF is much more than a "CLUE" that the FED is PROPPING UP the economy, and when they QUIT, the stock market will crash like nothing we have ever witnessed before in history.

The article does not say that. The article regurgitates the press release the Fed puts out on a regular basis. The "death and destruction are among us" rhetoric is entirely your imagination. Here is what the article says at the end, the only commentary on economic effects in the entire article:

Of the ten members of the Federal Open Market Committee who voted on whether the Fed should continue purchasing $40 billion in MBS each month and $45 billion in Treasury securities, only one voted no. That was Esther George, who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

The Fed’s press release announcing the vote said George voted against the continued buying of Treasury securities and MBS because she was “concerned that the continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future economic and financial imbalances and, over time, could cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations.”

So either you can't read or you deliberately misrepresented the article. Either way that makes you an idiot.

Couple that with the MIND NUMBING DEBT, of which soon we WON'T EVEN BE ABLE TO PAY THE INTEREST ON, and you have TWO things that are coming to head soon that either/or spell CERTAIN DISASTER for our economy. There IS - NO - RECOVERY going on, PERIOD, that is a COMPLETE LIE. Our GOVERNMENT is SEALING OUR COFFIN with it's OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING and QUANTITATIVE EASING.

Pure conjecture with no basis in fact, history, or economic analysis. Come back when you have something more than your whiney ass.

My GOD man... WISE THE FUCK UP.

There's only room for one idiot on this thread and you have that sewn up. And I am not your God.

 

[Freemason9]

There is no "economic recovery" folks, that is flat out, a LIE. We are in DEEP, DEEP, SHIT... and it's all coming to a close soon. We will experience catastrophic economic devastation of biblical proportion, and it will happen on obama's watch...



$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton


(CNSNews.com) - The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.

Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.

As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.

$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton | CNS News

If we don't stop Obama's spending by picking up seats in the Senate in `14, we are indeed screwed! Think of all the policies he would go forth with, if not stopped. His goal of crippling the economy would be on faster-forward....

And yet, you didn't worry at all when Bush doubled the "debt."

I think you're a partisan hack.

BTW, there is NO "debt crisis."

 

[Decus]

Sept. 23, 2013, 1:53 p.m. EDT

"Two senior Federal Reserve officials Monday expressed disappointment with the pace of the U.S. recovery, with New York Fed President William Dudley saying the economy is too weak for the central bank to pull back its bond-buying program."

Dudley: "He blamed the sluggishness, in part, on a drag from fiscal policy, in the form of the expiration of the payroll tax holiday and higher tax rates in January, along with the budget sequester. The sharp rise in market interest rates since May, when investors began looking toward a potential cutback in Fed bond buys, is also holding back the economy, he said."

Fed?s Dudley says economy too weak to taper - The Fed - MarketWatch

Weren't the tax issues part of Obama's agenda?

QE doesn't seem to have pulled the economy forward and talk of tapering the purchase of bonds and MBS is sending the market into a nose dive at home and abroad (see emerging economies). Ending QE3 could well send us back into a recession or worse.

Obama owns this economy. Inexperience has a price.

 

[hortysir]

There is no "economic recovery" folks, that is flat out, a LIE. We are in DEEP, DEEP, SHIT... and it's all coming to a close soon. We will experience catastrophic economic devastation of biblical proportion, and it will happen on obama's watch...



$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton


(CNSNews.com) - The same day that the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee announced last week that the Fed would continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month, the Fed also released its latest weekly accounting sheet indicating that it had already accumulated more Treasuries and MBSs than the total value of the publicly held U.S. government debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington though Bill Clinton.

Since the beginning of September 2008, in fact, the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBSs has increased seven fold.

As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBSs.

$3.39T Quantitative Explosion: Fed Owns More Treasuries and MBSs Than Publicly Held Debt Amassed From Washington Through Clinton | CNS News

If we don't stop Obama's spending by picking up seats in the Senate in `14, we are indeed screwed! Think of all the policies he would go forth with, if not stopped. His goal of crippling the economy would be on faster-forward....

And yet, you didn't worry at all when Bush doubled the "debt."

I think you're a partisan hack.

BTW, there is NO "debt crisis."

How many more TRILLIONS are needed for you to start to think that there may be a problem?

 

[oldfart]

How many more TRILLIONS are needed for you to start to think that there may be a problem?

The smart money is on an extra $10--12 trillion over five years to get us out of this mess. Unless of course you like your depression on the installment plan?

 

[Kimura]

How many more TRILLIONS are needed for you to start to think that there may be a problem?

The smart money is on an extra $10--12 trillion over five years to get us out of this mess. Unless of course you like your depression on the installment plan?

I don't know how many times I can possibly explain that quantitative easing is nothing more than a glorified asset swap. It's not "printing money", nor are there any net financial assets created in the process. I've tried to explain it in a non-wonkish fashion at least twenty times. I'm throwing in the towel. You have WAY more patience than I do.

 

[hortysir]

How many more TRILLIONS are needed for you to start to think that there may be a problem?

The smart money is on an extra $10--12 trillion over five years to get us out of this mess. Unless of course you like your depression on the installment plan?

I don't know how many times I can possibly explain that quantitative easing is nothing more than a glorified asset swap. It's not "printing money", nor are there any net financial assets created in the process. I've tried to explain it in a non-wonkish fashion at least twenty times. I'm throwing in the towel. You have WAY more patience than I do.

I'm glad you have no problem with only one tentacle having ahold of all of our (imaginary) debt

 

[Decus]

The problem QE creates is one of excess liquidity. Tapering exposes three areas of concern: the impact on the stock market (we see what happens to the market when tapering is simply mentioned), a rise in interest rates (and the negative effect that would have on the housing market), and emerging economies (our economy is impacted by international trade). Trying to reign in the money supply without a growing economy is fraught with danger. Here is the problem with QE - it cannot be continued indefinitely.

 

[oldfart]

The problem QE creates is one of excess liquidity. Tapering exposes three areas of concern: the impact on the stock market (we see what happens to the market when tapering is simply mentioned), a rise in interest rates (and the negative effect that would have on the housing market), and emerging economies (our economy is impacted by international trade). Trying to reign in the money supply without a growing economy is fraught with danger. Here is the problem with QE - it cannot be continued indefinitely.

OK, we are getting somewhere; thanks for clarifying. We have about $2 trillion of excess reserves in the banking system, so the "excess liquidity" is monetary base, not money supply. For the last couple of years about 95%+ of added reserves have gone into excess, so I think the real questions are when banks will start lending out more and how hard it will be for the Fed to unwind QE.

The stock market runs on expectations, so what the Fed is doing is not as important as what the market thinks the Fed will do in the future. Maybe we are in a stock market bubble because of QE (that happened in 1928 when the Fed was trying to support the Bank of England). Personally I think there is more than a little truth in this scenario, but like 1928, we have too many policy goals and too few tools to discriminate. I don't know how you stimulate the economy at the zero lower bound on interest rates and a deflationary fiscal policy without creating this kind of liquidity.

A rise in long-term interest rates does spook the real estate market. Again it's a matter of expectations: the Fed can control short-term rates, but long-term rates are what the market thinks the future short-term rates will be. This is the danger of playing the "taper" game. Again though, I don't see much of an alternative.

I'm not sure what emerging economies dynamic you are thinking of, but if China and the Eurozone crap out, the resource producing nations are in deep dodo. When they hurt, everybody's exports hurt as well.

The part I have put in bold is spot on. If we can get the economy on a decent growth path, this will all work out; if not we're all screwed anyway.

QE can't go on forever, but it can go on until the economy is more robust. There are a couple of studies out (one by a reputable but very conservative think tank) of the opinion that unwinding QE will not be such a big deal. I hope so.

The biggest problem is that the clock is ticking and all the ingredients for another melt down are out there. We need both meaningful stimulus and serious reform in financial regulation and corporate governance and none of this is even on the agenda right now.

 

[hortysir]

The problem QE creates is one of excess liquidity. Tapering exposes three areas of concern: the impact on the stock market (we see what happens to the market when tapering is simply mentioned), a rise in interest rates (and the negative effect that would have on the housing market), and emerging economies (our economy is impacted by international trade). Trying to reign in the money supply without a growing economy is fraught with danger. Here is the problem with QE - it cannot be continued indefinitely.

OK, we are getting somewhere; thanks for clarifying. We have about $2 trillion of excess reserves in the banking system, so the "excess liquidity" is monetary base, not money supply. For the last couple of years about 95%+ of added reserves have gone into excess, so I think the real questions are when banks will start lending out more and how hard it will be for the Fed to unwind QE.

The stock market runs on expectations, so what the Fed is doing is not as important as what the market thinks the Fed will do in the future. Maybe we are in a stock market bubble because of QE (that happened in 1928 when the Fed was trying to support the Bank of England). Personally I think there is more than a little truth in this scenario, but like 1928, we have too many policy goals and too few tools to discriminate. I don't know how you stimulate the economy at the zero lower bound on interest rates and a deflationary fiscal policy without creating this kind of liquidity.

A rise in long-term interest rates does spook the real estate market. Again it's a matter of expectations: the Fed can control short-term rates, but long-term rates are what the market thinks the future short-term rates will be. This is the danger of playing the "taper" game. Again though, I don't see much of an alternative.

I'm not sure what emerging economies dynamic you are thinking of, but if China and the Eurozone crap out, the resource producing nations are in deep dodo. When they hurt, everybody's exports hurt as well.

The part I have put in bold is spot on. If we can get the economy on a decent growth path, this will all work out; if not we're all screwed anyway.

QE can't go on forever, but it can go on until the economy is more robust. There are a couple of studies out (one by a reputable but very conservative think tank) of the opinion that unwinding QE will not be such a big deal. I hope so.

The biggest problem is that the clock is ticking and all the ingredients for another melt down are out there. We need both meaningful stimulus and serious reform in financial regulation and corporate governance and none of this is even on the agenda right now.

I've always been the first to admit that I suck at Econ.

Maybe you can explain to me how an economy that has consumers rapidly outnumbering producers become "more robust"

 

[SteadyMercury]

Is it possible for you in one thousand words or less to state an actual economic argument to back up your post?

Well I guess you got your answer. No, he cannot.

 

[oldfart]

QE can't go on forever, but it can go on until the economy is more robust. There are a couple of studies out (one by a reputable but very conservative think tank) of the opinion that unwinding QE will not be such a big deal. I hope so.

I've always been the first to admit that I suck at Econ.

Maybe you can explain to me how an economy that has consumers rapidly outnumbering producers become "more robust"

My point, perhaps badly expressed, was that we don't have to unwind QE until we are a lot closer to full employment and increased demand results in inflationary pressure; the whole Phillips curve thing. We are a long way from there.

We don't produce enough because there is not enough demand. Consumers are tapped out, business doesn't invest when there is excess capacity, and the world-wide recession hurts exports.

 

[Kimura]

The problem QE creates is one of excess liquidity. Tapering exposes three areas of concern: the impact on the stock market (we see what happens to the market when tapering is simply mentioned), a rise in interest rates (and the negative effect that would have on the housing market), and emerging economies (our economy is impacted by international trade). Trying to reign in the money supply without a growing economy is fraught with danger. Here is the problem with QE - it cannot be continued indefinitely.

OK, we are getting somewhere; thanks for clarifying. We have about $2 trillion of excess reserves in the banking system, so the "excess liquidity" is monetary base, not money supply. For the last couple of years about 95%+ of added reserves have gone into excess, so I think the real questions are when banks will start lending out more and how hard it will be for the Fed to unwind QE.

The stock market runs on expectations, so what the Fed is doing is not as important as what the market thinks the Fed will do in the future. Maybe we are in a stock market bubble because of QE (that happened in 1928 when the Fed was trying to support the Bank of England). Personally I think there is more than a little truth in this scenario, but like 1928, we have too many policy goals and too few tools to discriminate. I don't know how you stimulate the economy at the zero lower bound on interest rates and a deflationary fiscal policy without creating this kind of liquidity.

A rise in long-term interest rates does spook the real estate market. Again it's a matter of expectations: the Fed can control short-term rates, but long-term rates are what the market thinks the future short-term rates will be. This is the danger of playing the "taper" game. Again though, I don't see much of an alternative.

I'm not sure what emerging economies dynamic you are thinking of, but if China and the Eurozone crap out, the resource producing nations are in deep dodo. When they hurt, everybody's exports hurt as well.

The part I have put in bold is spot on. If we can get the economy on a decent growth path, this will all work out; if not we're all screwed anyway.

QE can't go on forever, but it can go on until the economy is more robust. There are a couple of studies out (one by a reputable but very conservative think tank) of the opinion that unwinding QE will not be such a big deal. I hope so.

The biggest problem is that the clock is ticking and all the ingredients for another melt down are out there. We need both meaningful stimulus and serious reform in financial regulation and corporate governance and none of this is even on the agenda right now.

Just to add a few points: The FED controls interest rates all along the term structure, even all they way out if they so choose. They'll generally permit some fluctuations between they IOR rate and discount rate. It boils down to policy objectives.

Secondly, some posters seem concerned about the money supply and interest rates. Monetary targeting is no longer pursued by central banks, not since the 1980s. Central banks, such as the FED, can only directly control interest rates, not the supply of money. Monetary policy is now handled by setting the short-term rate and managing the liquidity in the cash markets (overnight).

Just sayin'...

 

[oldfart]

Just to add a few points: The FED controls interest rates all along the term structure, even all they way out if they so choose. They'll generally permit some fluctuations between they IOR rate and discount rate. It boils down to policy objectives.

Just for clarity, the mechanism for the Fed to influence long-term rates is through expectations of future short-term rates, hopefully through "forward guidance". But if the markets are convinced that the Fed will revert to central bank form at the first whiff of recovery, I don't see much the Fed can do to lower long-term rates. Am I missing something?