"...without more help, the economy is likely to remain weak, or grow weaker,
through the rest of this year.
More help being Federal Reserve Quantatative Easing,
meaning more money creation from nowhere
causing gasoline and other staples to rise in cost as a consequence?
...help is needed now.
Congressional Republicans, however,
have long resisted efforts to revive growth on the theory that a weak economy
will help them regain the White House.
How about it's immoral to borrow from a nation's children
to fund a more pleasant present for the status quo
as taxes rise via higher consumer staples prices
hitting the bottom of the income strate by far more than the top?
That leaves the Fed the only entity
with the autonomy and the power to take action.
Is the New York Times trying to subvert the constitution
by allowing an unelected private entity raise revenues
instead of the House of Representatives?
Admittedly, its tools — various ways to reduce borrowing costs and spur lending
— are not ideal for the problems that Mr. Bernanke has identified.
More money printing without saying more money printing?
If they can't say what it is they want
could there be something wrong with what they're saying?
It would be better, for example,
for lawmakers to bolster federal spending in the near term to create jobs
than for the Fed to indirectly attempt to boost activity through more lending.
They mean more printing.
What did it take to not actually identify what the New York Times editors want
without actually saying it?
...Mr. Bernanke has laid out the problem,
including the economic drag caused by political dysfunction.
But he has also risked becoming part of the dysfunctional dynamic,
exhorting and waiting for others to act
when they are clearly unable or unwilling to do so.
Isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work?
And here’s hoping that any help is not too little, too late.
The Editorial Board of the New York Times