<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The case against Ben Bernanke</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/30/the-case-against-ben-bernanke-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/30/the-case-against-ben-bernanke-2/</link>
	<description>Politics and policy from inside Washington</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:23:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Siobhan Sack</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/30/the-case-against-ben-bernanke-2/comment-page-1/#comment-961</link>
		<dc:creator>Siobhan Sack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:59:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/?p=1307#comment-961</guid>
		<description>I was curious to see how Bernstein concluded his opinion on Bernanke.  The beginning parts of his case were the general &amp; dated talking points from the Obama campaign.

1) I don&#039;t know how anyone could call Bernanke &quot;status quo&quot; especially in light of the extreme &amp; heroic measures the Fed has undertaken over the last 10 months (which has had the not so small benefit of saving Obama&#039;s bacon these few months later &amp; more importantly the Country &amp; the world economy-- but never miss a chance to bite the hand that feeds you).   I thought it was universally accepted that the heavy lifting by the Fed was a key component of averting complete disaster(?)  and creating current stability.  Today the President inexplicably stated it was his Stimulus bill that is goosing the &quot;recovery.&quot;  What was in that Bud Lite?

2) Next the nonsense about being &quot;too close to Wall St.&quot; -- another deeply held article of faith for Obamacrats.  This has proven to be one big obstacle to first class government appointments.  Accordingly, it&#039;s best to apponit someone who is removed from the source, academics are best or even someone who has an arcane or tangential connection to the subject at hand(!!!?)  They lost out on appointing Rodgin Cohen. This extends to foreign policy where even Sec. of State Clinton has groused about the appointment procedures.  Is the Treasury Dept. even close to half staffed yet?

To his 3rd point, who the heck puts any kind of  &quot;asset inflation&quot; on the top of the list right now --really -?  The bigger risk is hyper-inflation, which would be a result of the Fed not having an exit strategy for quantative easing.  It&#039;s going to be tough to turn off the spigot &amp; we&#039;d all prefer someone who won&#039;t be leveraged by the politicos.

Last, Bernstein&#039;s concluding argument was rife with nonsense. TARP, Small Biz, etc.  Does he forget how TARP came to be, what it&#039;s purpose was?  It was meant to avert collapse.  

Is his concluding argument an opening salvo for gov. involvement &amp; investment in small biz?  Does he forget that all this commenced with &quot;real investment&quot; - homes?  He wants to expand the recklessness further when the first mess isn&#039;t cleaned up?

Kinda dumb.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was curious to see how Bernstein concluded his opinion on Bernanke.  The beginning parts of his case were the general &amp; dated talking points from the Obama campaign.</p>
<p>1) I don&#8217;t know how anyone could call Bernanke &#8220;status quo&#8221; especially in light of the extreme &amp; heroic measures the Fed has undertaken over the last 10 months (which has had the not so small benefit of saving Obama&#8217;s bacon these few months later &amp; more importantly the Country &amp; the world economy&#8211; but never miss a chance to bite the hand that feeds you).   I thought it was universally accepted that the heavy lifting by the Fed was a key component of averting complete disaster(?)  and creating current stability.  Today the President inexplicably stated it was his Stimulus bill that is goosing the &#8220;recovery.&#8221;  What was in that Bud Lite?</p>
<p>2) Next the nonsense about being &#8220;too close to Wall St.&#8221; &#8212; another deeply held article of faith for Obamacrats.  This has proven to be one big obstacle to first class government appointments.  Accordingly, it&#8217;s best to apponit someone who is removed from the source, academics are best or even someone who has an arcane or tangential connection to the subject at hand(!!!?)  They lost out on appointing Rodgin Cohen. This extends to foreign policy where even Sec. of State Clinton has groused about the appointment procedures.  Is the Treasury Dept. even close to half staffed yet?</p>
<p>To his 3rd point, who the heck puts any kind of  &#8220;asset inflation&#8221; on the top of the list right now &#8211;really -?  The bigger risk is hyper-inflation, which would be a result of the Fed not having an exit strategy for quantative easing.  It&#8217;s going to be tough to turn off the spigot &amp; we&#8217;d all prefer someone who won&#8217;t be leveraged by the politicos.</p>
<p>Last, Bernstein&#8217;s concluding argument was rife with nonsense. TARP, Small Biz, etc.  Does he forget how TARP came to be, what it&#8217;s purpose was?  It was meant to avert collapse.  </p>
<p>Is his concluding argument an opening salvo for gov. involvement &amp; investment in small biz?  Does he forget that all this commenced with &#8220;real investment&#8221; &#8211; homes?  He wants to expand the recklessness further when the first mess isn&#8217;t cleaned up?</p>
<p>Kinda dumb.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jason</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/30/the-case-against-ben-bernanke-2/comment-page-1/#comment-922</link>
		<dc:creator>jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/?p=1307#comment-922</guid>
		<description>For me the case against Bernanke is simply his job should not exist. Congress should be coining(not printing) our money and regulating commerce among foreign nations. Of course that can be just as scary with the weak representation we are plagued with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me the case against Bernanke is simply his job should not exist. Congress should be coining(not printing) our money and regulating commerce among foreign nations. Of course that can be just as scary with the weak representation we are plagued with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
