Federal Reserve policymakers appear less inclined to launch a fresh round of monetary stimulus as the U.S. economy gradually improves, according to minutes for the central bank’s March meeting.

Economic growth has strengthened slightly, Fed officials noted, but they remained cautious about a broad pick up in U.S. activity, focusing heavily on a still elevated jobless rate.

Despite this caution, only “a couple” of members thought additional monetary stimulus might be needed to support the economy if it loses momentum or inflation remains too low for too long.

That was a much less robust showing than in January, when a few members saw a possible need for additional easing before long, while another contingent thought that stimulus might be required if economic conditions worsened.

Only last week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had kept alive the idea of more stimulus when he warned business economists about the risks that long-term unemployment could lead to prolonged economic malaise in the United States. Investors had interpreted those comments as suggesting Bernanke leaned toward a third round of bond buys, known as quantitative easing or QE3.

The latest Fed’s minutes sent a different message by toning down support for further stimulus, which hammered U.S. stocks, bonds and gold, and pushing the dollar higher.

“The minutes threw water on the resurrected notion that QE3 was still very much on the table,” said Clark Yingst, chief market analyst at Joseph Gunnar & Co. in New York.

CONTINUED at Yahoo Finance.

Ben Bernanke has decided that he needs to teach all of us why the Federal Reserve is good for America and about why the gold standard is bad.  On Tuesday, Bernanke delivered the first of four planned lectures to a group of students at George Washington University.  But that lecture was not just for the benefit of those students.  Officials at the Fed have long planned for this lecture series to be an opportunity for Bernanke to “educate” the American people about the Federal Reserve.  The classroom was absolutely packed with reporters and just about every major news organization is running a story about this first lecture.  So the Federal Reserve is definitely getting the publicity that it was hoping for.  You can see the slides from the presentation that Bernanke gave to the students right here.  It is pretty obvious that one of the primary goals of this first lecture was to attack those that have been critical of the Fed over the past few years.  In doing so, Bernanke “stretched” the truth on more than one occasion.

The entire event was staged to make Bernanke and the Federal Reserve look as good as possible.  Prior to his arrival, the students gathered for the lecture were actually instructed to applaud Bernanke….

The 30 undergraduates at George Washington University sent up a round of applause. It was, they’d been told beforehand, “appropriate, even encouraged, to politely applaud” Tuesday’s guest lecturer.

But as noted above, this lecture was not for the benefit of those students.  AUSA Today article even admitted that “addressing the public directly” was one of the real goals of this lecture….

For Bernanke, the GW lectures serve a dual function:

They give him a chance to reprise the role of professor he played for more than two decades, first at Stanford and then at Princeton, where he eventually chaired the economics department.

And they give him a way to expand his mission of demystifying the Fed. As part of that campaign, Bernanke became the first Fed chief to hold regular news conferences and conduct town-hall meetings.

In addressing the public directly, Bernanke has also sought to neutralize attacks on the Fed, some of them from Republican presidential candidates.

So what did Bernanke actually say during the lecture?

Well, you can read all of the slides right here, but the following are some of the highlights….

On page 6 of the presentation, Bernanke makes the following claim….

“A central bank is not an ordinary commercial bank, but a government agency.”

Well, that is quite interesting considering the fact that the Federal Reserve hasargued in court that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is not an agency of the federal government and that the various Federal Reserve banks around the country are private corporations with private funding.

So did the Federal Reserve lie to the court or is Ben Bernanke lying to us?

And what other “agency” of the federal government is owned by private banks?

It is even admitted that the individual member banks own shares of stock in the various Federal Reserve banks on the Federal Reserve website….

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

The Federal Reserve always talks about how it must be “independent” and “above politics”, but when they start getting criticized they always want to seek shelter under the wing of the federal government.

It really is disgusting.

On page 7 of the presentation, the following statement is made….

“All central banks strive for low and stable inflation; most also try to promote stable growth in output and employment.”

Well, on both counts the Federal Reserve has failed miserably.

Right now, if inflation was measured the same way that it was back in 1980, the annual rate of inflation would be more than 10 percent.

And when you take a longer view of things, the inflation that the Federal Reserve has manufactured has been absolutely horrific.

Even using the doctored inflation numbers that the Federal Reserve gives us, the U.S. dollar has still lost 83 percent of its value since 1970.

The truth is that inflation is a “hidden tax” that is constantly destroying the value of every single dollar that you and I hold.  Those that attempt to save money for the future or for retirement are deeply penalized under such a system.

As far as employment goes, the total number of workers that are “officially” unemployed in the United States is larger than the entire population of Portugal.

The average duration of unemployment is hovering near an all-time record high and almost every measure of government dependence is at an all-time record high.

So the Federal Reserve is failing at the exact things that Bernanke claims that it is supposed to be doing.

But instead of directly addressing many of the specific criticisms that have been leveled at the Fed, Bernanke instead chose to spend much of his lecture talking about the problems with adopting a gold standard.  The following are statements that were pulled directly off of the slides he used during his speech….

-”The gold standard sets the money supply and price level generally with limited central bank intervention.”

-”The strength of a gold standard is its greatest weakness too: Because the money supply is determined by the supply of gold, it cannot be adjusted in response to changing economic conditions.”

-”All countries on the gold standard are forced to maintain fixed exchange rates. As a result, the effects of bad policies in one country can be transmitted to other countries if both are on the gold standard.”

-”If not perfectly credible, a gold standard is subject to speculative attack and ultimate collapse as people try to exchange paper money for gold.”

-”The gold standard did not prevent frequent financial panics.”

-”Although the gold standard promoted price stability over the very long run, over the medium run it sometimes caused periods of inflation and deflation.”

-”In the second half of the 19th century, a global shortage of gold reduced the U.S. money supply and caused deflation (falling prices). Farmers were squeezed between declining prices for crops and the fixed dollar payments for their mortgages and other debts.”

Bernanke spent more time on the gold standard during his speech than on anything else.  At one point during the lecture, Bernanke made the following statement….

“To have a gold standard, you have to go to South Africa or someplace and dig up tons of gold and move  it to New York and put it in the basement of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and that’s a lot of effort and work”

Bernanke even blamed the gold standard for the Great Depression.  On a slide entitled “Monetary Policy in the Great Depression”, Bernanke made the following claims….

•The Fed’s tight monetary policy led to sharply falling prices and steep declines in output and employment.
•The effects of policy errors here and abroad were transmitted globally through the gold standard.
•The Fed kept money tight in part because it wanted to preserve the gold standard. When FDR abandoned the gold standard in 1933, monetary policy became less tight and deflation stopped.

Bernanke seems to want to frame the debate over monetary policy is such a way that the American people are given only two alternative systems to consider: the Federal Reserve and a gold standard.

But the truth is that there are a vast array of both “hard money” and “soft money” systems that would not include a central bank or a gold standard at all.

So the truth is that the American people would have many different systems to choose from if they wanted to shut down the Federal Reserve and set up something new.

In the past the U.S. government has issued debt-free money and it could certainly do so again.

But in his lecture, Bernanke did not even mention how the Federal Reserve creates money or how whenever new money is created more debt is created.

Under the Federal Reserve system, the money supply is designed to continually increase, and whenever more money is created more debt is also created.

In a previous article I discussed how more money is created on the federal level….

For example, whenever the U.S. government wants to spend more money than it takes in (which happens constantly), it has to go ask the Federal Reserve for it.  The federal government gives U.S. Treasury bonds to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve gives the U.S. government “Federal Reserve Notes” in return.  Usually this is just done electronically.

So where does the Federal Reserve get the Federal Reserve Notes?

It just creates them out of thin air.

Wouldn’t you like to be able to create money out of thin air?

Instead of issuing money directly, the U.S. government lets the Federal Reserve create it out of thin air and then the U.S. government borrows it.

Talk about stupid.

The designers of the Federal Reserve system intended to trap the U.S. government in a debt spiral that would expand perpetually.

So has their design worked?

Well, just look at the chart below….

Today, the U.S. national debt is more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was first created.

So I guess you could say that the results have been spectacular.

The Federal Reserve system also greatly favors the big Wall Street banks that it is designed to serve.

When those big banks get into trouble, the Federal Reserve snaps into action.

According to a limited GAO audit of Fed transactions during the last financial crisis, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve to the big Wall Street banks between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010.

The following list is taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report and it shows which banks received money from the Fed….

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
“All Other Borrowers” - $2.639 trillion

What about all the rest of us?

Did we get bailed out?

No, we were told that if Wall Street was rescued that the benefits would trickle down to the rest of us.

Unfortunately, that has not exactly worked out.  In article, after article, afterarticle I have detailed the horrible economic suffering that the American people are still going through.

But what Bernanke and the Fed have done is create inflation in commodities such as oil which is affecting the household finances of nearly everyone in America.

The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States is now up to $3.87.  That is an all-time record high for the month of March.

So far in 2012, the price of gasoline in the United States has risen by 17 percent.

Thanks Bernanke.

Over the past several decades, every time there has been a major spike in gasoline prices in the United States, a recession has always followed.  If you doubt this, just check out this amazing chart.

So will we soon see another recession?

If we are lucky.  Hopefully the next downturn will not be a full-blown depression.

The truth is that the Federal Reserve does not help us avoid booms and busts.  Rather, it creates them.  The Fed was at the heart of the housing bubble which helped bring on the last financial crisis when it crashed, and the current ultra-low interest rate policies of the Fed are creating more bubbles which will have devastating long-term consequences.

So Bernanke does not have anything to be proud of, and his track record has been absolutely nightmarish.

Hopefully the American people will not believe the propaganda and will take an honest look at the Federal Reserve.

When you take an honest look at the Federal Reserve, there is only one rational conclusion: Congress should shut it down, lock the doors and throw away the key.

Source: The Economic Collapse.

The Federal Reserve has operated almost entirely behind closed doors as it rewrites the rule book governing the U.S. financial system, a stark contrast with its push for transparency in its interest-rate policies and emergency-lending programs.

While many Americans may not realize it, the Fed has taken on a much larger regulatory role than at any time in history. Since the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul became law in July 2010, the Fed has held 47 separate votes on financial regulations, and scores more are coming. In the process it is reshaping the U.S. financial industry by directing banks on how much …

CONTINUED at the Wall Street Journal.

The policies that the Fed embarked on in late 2007 are a sharp departure from the old way of performing monetary policy. In fact, it is difficult to state that the Fed is any longer in the business of traditional monetary policy — understood in the United States as aiming for low inflation and smoothed output volatility. A new breed of monetary policies better referred to as “quasi-fiscal” policies has become the norm.

The Fed’s policies have a fiscal flair to them for two reasons.

First, no longer are output and inflation the primary concerns. The Fed has framed any reference to inflation over the past four years in the context of either:

1. the low levels of price inflation erasing inflationary fears from pursuing unorthodox monetary policies, or
2. the threat of deflation, thus creating the “need” for monetary expansion to ward off its ill effects.

Inflation has not been a direct concern in the sense that the Fed’s role is to control it. Instead, it has been viewed as a constraint on Fed policies to pursue other ends.

Concerns about maintaining output have likewise taken a backseat. Monetary economists (Fed officials included) conventionally viewed monetary policy as a tool to minimize the output gap. During recessionary periods, just the right dose of monetary expansion should tempt employers to increase production and hire workers. The attention now, however, is on keeping banks capitalized through monetary expansion. By not allowing the bad debts on banks’ balance sheets to bring them to insolvency, the Fed is hoping to stave off a contagious banking crisis. The Fed is seemingly less directly concerned with maintaining output, and more with keeping banks afloat (which, admittedly, officials think will translate into employment).

The second reason that the Fed has been taking on decidedly fiscal activities is that its policies are directly affecting its own finances. Traditional monetary policy left the Fed’s balance sheet intact. Until this recession, the textbook explanation of how the Fed alters the money supply held true: it bought or sold Treasury bills, and the money supply correspondingly increased or decreased. By purchasing assets of lesser quality over the recession, the Fed has endangered its own balance sheet in the name of strengthening those of the preferred members of the banking system.

CONTINUED at The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by David Howden.

A combination of several factors, including a declining dollar and the Federal Reserve’s announcement that it would keep interest rates at virtually zero until late 2014, helped to send gold and silver prices soaring to multi-week highs. Analysts expect the upward trend to continue as paper currencies founder and gloomy news continues to dominate the economic headlines.

The spot price for gold was around $1,725 by 2 p.m. Eastern time after jumping more than $60 since the day before, up almost 30 percent from a year ago and more than 7.5 percent over the last 30 days. It smashed through $1,700 on Wednesday for the first in six weeks.

“At the moment everything points to even higher prices, given the strong risk appetite, the better mood among market players, the strong equity markets and the weak dollar,” Commerzbank analyst Daniel Briesemann told Reuters.

Analysts said the single most important factor behind gold’s strong rally was the Federal Reserve. On Wednesday, the privately owned central bank promised to keep short-term interest rates at rock bottom until late 2014, extending the date from its previous pledge to keep rates down until mid-2013.

Also bullish for gold — and bearish for the U.S. dollar, of course — was Fed boss Ben “helicopter” Bernanke’s veiled threat to unleash more so-called “Quantitative Easing,” known in simpler terms as creating new “money” out of thin air and pumping it into the economy by purchasing bonds. The dollar immediately took a hit against other major currencies.

“The framework makes very clear that we need to be thinking about ways to provide further stimulus if we don’t get improvement in the pace of recovery and a normalization of inflation,” Bernanke said during a quarterly news conference after the Fed’s report was released. Analysts and central bank critics, already concerned about massive monetary “easing” in recent years, lambasted the idea that more money would solve the economic problems plaguing America.

“If the Federal Reserve thought the economy was improving, it wouldn’t need this artificial prop to keep sustaining it,” said Euro Pacific Capital head Peter Schiff, noting that wild money printing was helping to drive the nation and its economy off a cliff. “The President and the Federal Reserve are now conspiring to create a much bigger crisis.”

The Fed claimed it would be targeting a 2-percent rate of annual inflation for 2012. However, few analysts take the government’s “Consumer Price Index” (CPI) measure of inflation seriously — especially as Core CPI, one of the most frequently cited figures, omits price increases in key sectors like food and energy.

According to Schiff, the government’s claim based on CPI that inflation for 2011 was 3 percent is completely bogus. It was actually much higher, he said, noting that officials were using phony measures like the CPI to mask the true rate of inflation. And it is likely to be even higher in 2012 before eventually morphing into a full-blown currency and debt crisis in the coming years.

“The reason they have to keep [interest rates] so low is to artificially support a phony economy,” Schiff explained. “This economy is a disaster waiting to happen — the only thing standing between us and economic Armageddon is zero-percent interest rates.”

But it can’t go on forever, and the longer rates are kept so low, the worse the looming crisis will be. For now, Schiff, whose business trades gold and silver, said investors should protect their assets by purchasing precious metals “before the price goes any higher.”

An analysis by Bloomberg published on Wednesday showed that gold — which has increased every year for more than a decade — provided the best return on investment over the last five years when adjusted for volatility. And heavy-hitting financial firms cited in the report including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are forecasting that gold prices will keep rising to around $2,000 in 2012 or 2013.

“People are still very under-invested in gold, and so there is a huge scope of that increasing,” explained UniCredit analyst Jochen Hitzfeld, the most accurate precious-metals forecaster tracked by Bloomberg over the past two years. Other experts noted that gold is widely and accurately perceived as a safe-haven in times of economic turmoil.

While gold prices have been extraordinarily volatile — spot prices hit $1,923 in September before crashing to $1,523 by the end of 2011 — the longer-term rally has so far been relatively consistent over the past decade. Just 10 years ago, gold was worth less than $300 per ounce.

Silver, which has also seen drastic price fluctuations, was less than $5 per ounce 10 years ago. In 2011, it surged to an all-time high of around $50 before dropping back down to about $33.35 today. The U.S. dollar, meanwhile, has not been doing so well — even when measured against other depreciating paper currencies.

Even billionaire investor George Soros, whose well-publicized sale of some 99 percent of his gold holdings during the first quarter of 2011 spooked precious-metals investors, has jumped back into the market. According to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings cited by Bloomberg, the hedge-fund manager had increased his stake in SPDR Gold Trust, an exchange-traded fund tracking gold prices, to almost 50,000 shares as of September 30.

Central banks around the world were also buying up multi-ton quantities of gold bullion, according to data cited in news reports. And the trend shows no signs of slowing down.

In other bullish news for the precious metal, unconfirmed reports indicate India has started purchasing oil from Iran using gold rather than U.S. dollars. China could follow, too, according to news reports.

“It shows the exodus from the dollar is gaining speed,” noted precious-metals and currency trader Simit Patel on the investment analysis site Seeking Alpha. “With the major economies of the world facing $7.6 trillion in bond payments due this year, I think the tipping point for a shift out of dollars and into a new monetary system backed by gold is not as far off as it may seem.”

With the steep drop in prices during the last few months of 2011, some analysts and traders were reluctant to get back in the precious-metals market before the appearance of a solid bottom had solidified. But the big banks and respected analysts are forecasting that as long as the fundamentals — out-of-control money printing, sovereign-debt crises, wild government spending, and more — remain the same, gold and silver prices could see massive gains in 2012.

Source: New American.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

We are practically 30 debates in and we still have like 120 left. There are so many now that I have to date the debates in the article title. I can no longer write early, mid or late before the month. It’s only the 9th of November and this is the second debate just this month. We still have at least three more in November alone. There is actually another one in just three days. It’s maddening and it is getting to the point where chronicling all these GOP shit shows is taking a lot more time than I ever anticipated. At the end of the day, I do actually like writing about them and bringing you, the reader, my extended two cents. It’s just time consuming and intrusive to my life when I work more than full-time and party on top of that every waken moment. But whatevs, I’m out of mini bottles of Seven Tiki at the moment, so I guess it’s time to direct my attention at something much more important.

This debate was pretty good overall, other than the typical lack of time given to Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul, when given time, was on his goddamned A game! He was hotter in this debate than any other. His answers were on point and exacting. I think in the eyes of the standard Fox News watching conservative viewer, he may have gained some points simply for the fact that this debate was strictly economic. This allowed Paul to hit some home runs without being scrutinized every other question like when the talk of the moment is foreign policy. Not that Paul is wrong on foreign policy, he is dead right but conservatives refuse to accept reason, logic or common sense and instead continue down the path of repetitive stupidity and fear-mongering when it comes to handling our “enemies”. Anyway, this is about the debate, not conservative idiosyncrasies.

CNBC hits us weakly with their subpar video introduction which makes note of the fact that the debate is all about economics and that it is in Michigan, in the backyard of the companies that received the auto industry bailouts. Thanks for cluing us in and reminding us that Detroit is in fact in Michigan. CNBC, after the intro, lets us know that there will be no opening and closing statements, as they want to dedicate more time to the debate. Well that’s nice of them! We can’t have Bachmann wasting five minutes on telling us how her 18,371st foster kid Bruce whittled a recorder out of oak with a wolverine’s broken jaw bone. It is probably worth noting that Michigan native Romney got the loudest pop from the crowd during the brief introductions.

The moderators for this debate were pretty decent and straightforward for the most part, although this was overshadowed by the fact that they had Jim Cramer from “Mad Money” on the panel. This guy is a fucking dickwad that claims to be a real capitalist while calling for more regulations and other ridiculous bullshit. Not only that but Cramer is just a loud obnoxious moron that sounds like he is cutting a wrestling promo against his opponent whenever he asks a question. Having Jim Cramer as a debate moderator is like having the Ultimate Warrior read children’s stories after he rubbed angeldust on his gums. He’s a about as colorful, as scary and as unfunny as a clown’s dick. I’d rather have CNN’s John King throat gurgle through the entire debate than listen to Cramer ask even one question.

Another thing worth noting, moderator Steve Liesman looks like Todd Packard from “The Office”.

I’m going to start off with Rick Santorum, just to get him out of the way. Per usual, he was ineffective and barely noticeable in this sea of shitpickles. His inclusion in these debates has gone beyond just being a joke and has gotten to the point that he is wasting everyone’s time, even his own. He needs to graciously bow out and just support whomever he feels he needs to latch onto to stay somewhat relevant. Problem is, Santorum staying relevant is like a stripper staying on the night shift after her 30th birthday.

It’s hard to even pay attention to Santorum, as he just spews his relgiotarded nonsense to the point that even the relgiotards aren’t listening anymore. His poll numbers are dismal and if Gary Johnson isn’t invited to most of these, Santorum shouldn’t be either. The same could be said for Jon Huntsman but I’ll get to him in a sec.

All I learned from Racquetball Rick this round is that he was a coal miner’s daughter. There was talk of Jesus and tennis but none of that really funny whining and crying he is synonymous with. Although when Ron Paul and some others were touting health savings accounts, Santorum said that he has been on that train for years and that he pretty much invented them. When everyone is asked about Obamacare, he is the only one without a real answer, as he just uses his time to boast about all the things he has done for health care. None of these things were really solutions, they were just attempts to build up and reinforce his wobbly house of cards with an empty hand. And that’s it for Santorum. He contributed nothing except his douchenugget dorkdick smile.

Jon Huntsman, another ding dong that needs to bow out was at least a bit more engaging than Santorum. At least a few of his answers and points come to mind when looking back, where Santorum gave us nothing.

The first thing Huntsman said that is worthy of a mention is that banks that are too big to fail will cause economic contagion. He also said that he is the president of the 99% but also the president of the 1% because he was going to unify everyone. People aren’t Voltron lions dude; they don’t just come together in times of need. He also said that spending $68 billion on bank bailouts was wrong. No shit cockwart! Huntsman also says that the government needs to charge extra fees to bailed out banks to alleviate the burden shoved onto the taxpayers.

As for Obamacare, Jon Huntsman says that as president, he would sit down with all the state governors and work out state specific health care options. Huh? WTF? Are you meeting with all of them at once or on a one-on-one basis? Cause this shit could take a while homie and we ain’t got the time! I guess it’s better than spending 90% of your time playing fucking golf though. Huntsman promises to find a solution to the high cost of health care. He needs to elaborate on this but really that’s just a waste as there are far simpler options.

On Mitt Romney’s plan to deal with China, which will be touched on here in a bit, Huntsman says that it isn’t a real solution and that he is just pandering. I’m assuming he means that Mitt is pandering to the crowd because I feel the same way. Mitt claims China is manipulating currency but Huntsman points out the the U.S. is manipulating its own currency with quantitative easing. Huntsman then goes on a rant about oatmeal and swords or something and that’s it.

Michele Bachmann was her typical self and just like a throwback to mainstream media Palin bashing, I have to point out this lady’s poor fashion choice. Basically her jacket was the exact same jacket Dr. No wore in his self-titled film “Dr. No”. Granted that was a James Bond movie, but Dr. No jacked the film title like Bachmann jacked Dr. No’s jacket. In any event, I could’ve sworn I saw Bachmann wiping 007′s blood off of her sleeve when she thought the camera wasn’t on her. Sorry, this makes Bachmann bashing too easy but it is hard to knock the guys fashion sense since they all were dapper suits. Being a woman in politics must suck because of assholes like me. Whatever, just stop dressing like a high-ranking member of SPECTRE and I’ll shut up.

Bachmann once again proves that she is just too fucking nice when the moderators give her a the perfect opportunity to go after Romney. She praises him and then switches to her standard Obama-bashing rhetoric. We’ve heard the catchphrases a few thousand times now lady. All I know is that she compared taxes to Happy Meals or something. Um dude, Happy Meals are happy, taxes are sad. I’m not following you.

When asked another question, she doesn’t really answer it. She just informs us, who are apparently clueless, on how Obama is doing it wrong. Well what is the right way lady? People who are supporting this woman are just supporting senseless substance-less Obama-bashing without any real answers, solutions or fixes. Bachmann calls Obama policy “lunacy”. Yes, she described something as “lunacy” and she wasn’t even looking in the mirror.

Michele Bachmann then warns us that the Chinese live in the Pentagon’s computers. I can understand that since the country is very heavily populated and they might want some peace and quiet from the hustle and bustle of Chinese life. Bachmann also points out that they are building secret tunnels to hide weapons and snacks. She says that the American taxpayers are the ones paying for it as we keep borrowing from China. Wait.. have we been paying them back? Damn! Well I want a ride on the Chinese aircraft carrier then!

Bachmann doesn’t say anything else. Well, she does but I have a hard time with my idiocy filter on. Yes, I am probably too hard on her but she is another candidate like Huntsman and Santorum, as she is just wasting everyone’s time. These debates would be so much better if we trimmed the fat. It’s about time for this to start happening. And unless she has some more concert tickets to give away for straw poll votes, her campaign is doomed at this point.

Another candidate that should definitely hang’m up, especially after this debate, is Texas Governor Rick Perry. This debate was career suicide for Perry and as much as I severely dislike this guy, I almost felt sorry for him. The biggest fuck up in debate history that I can remember came when Rick Perry went to tell us the three government agencies he would eliminate. After he listed the first two, his mind drew a 53 second blank on the third. The extremely awkward moment was capped off by him staring at the moderators completely dumbfounded until he uttered, “Oops”. The fact that he can’t even remember the basis for a huge part of his platform is fucking scary!

See for yourself:

Knocking Rick Perry on this is just too easy and the world has given him enough heat already. He’s still an asshole in my eyes and always will be but damn, I’d be surprised if he could win a fourth term as Texas Governor at this point.

There are some other notable Perry moments from the evening. The first is when Perry sends a message to the big banks when he says, “If you are too big too fail, you are too big.” M’kay? Perry then spends time pimping out his tax plan and other ideas he has, it only took him months to get his shit together and give us something. All previous debates were sprinkled with, “I’m working on it! You’ll see it soon at RickPerry.com! Yeeeeeehaaaaaw!!! (accompanied with gunfire)”.

Perry also goes on about how America needs to get energy going. He tells us that regulations are killing America. He then gives props to Santorum, thus giving the audience a little Rick on Rick love. I bet Santorum gives Perry tennis lessons.

When it comes to the Obamacare questions, Rick Perry says that people need to be given a “menu of options”. He says, “Doctors need to be given incentives on health care rather than sick care.”

He then goes on about how he created a job creation climate in Texas with no regulatory strangulation. He says that his tax plan will help balance the budget in 2020. Yeah bro, that’s like 8 years away. Is this so that you don’t have to answer to critics when your plan fails because just by chance, if you became president, and even won a second term, this would be at the very tail end of your eight year lease in the White House. 2020 is not today, we need a fix now!

Perry goes on a tangent about how universities need to be forced to be more efficient. Okay sir, did you get that idea from Hugo Chavez? Perry then closes out his portion of the debate by bitching about the corruption caused by corporate lobbyists. As he says this, he pauses to check his Wells Fargo app on his iPhone to make sure that check from Merck cleared.

The time thief Mitt Romney was successful at monopolizing every moment he could once again. I don’t blame Mr. Mittens however, as CNBC, just like Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, spent more time asking Romney questions than anyone else. I think Mitt alone gets about 30-40% of the time in these debates. That’s the mainstream media for ya though, proppin’ up their fancy handpicked golden boys.

Romney is first asked if the United States should bailout the European Union. The fact that the moderators even ask this question is proof at how many dumbasses work under the NBC banner. Romney says that the EU can take care of their own problems and that we don’t need to bail them out. Romney goes on to say that Europe needs to take care of their own problems and the United States shouldn’t be bailing out our own banks let alone Europe’s. I can’t disagree with that. When pressed however, Romney admits that he supports the World Bank and the IMF. Yep, I knew he couldn’t give a good statement without finding a way to fuck it up. After this, Mitt claims that he saved the Olympics. From what dude? Did the Skrulls attack or something?

Mitt’s had some other noteworthy quips and I’m not referring to the little swirl at the top of Dairy Queen products. Mitt said that we need profitable businesses that can hire people and the current administration is failing at this. He also says that we need to simplify the tax code but we need to lower taxes first. When asked about Obamacare, he says that health care should be a state issue. He also agrees with Ron Paul’s point that we need to push health savings accounts. Mitt also said that people need the broadest array of health care options.

In the second hour, Romney goes on to explain that Obama is only focused on his re-election. Apparently Romney needs to re-focus on his hair because it’s starting to melt under those hot lights. Maybe his hair is wax! He’s really just some weird bald guy under there!

Disregarding his wax sculpture, Mitt tells us that he promises to not raise taxes and that he will cut spending dramatically. Funny, because Reason Magazine analyzed Mitt’s fix-it plan and discovered that his “cuts” would actually expand the federal budget (read this).

Mr. Romney then tells us a spooky tale about the Chinese boogeyman. He states that he believes in free trade but not with China because they are evil. Actually he calls them “predatory” about a dozen times over the course of two minutes. Mitt says that China is hacking our computers and manipulating our currency. This causes Huntsman to butt in with the QE comment I referenced earlier. All I hear is “I love free trade but..” and “I love free trade but..” Mitt is a doublethinker and doublespeaker. Mitt’s solution in dealing with China is to assault them with tariffs. Yep, great idea ass bastard.

In the shadow of his sexual harassment circus, Herman Cain tried to ignore the media assault in an effort to see if he could fit the slogan “Nine.. nine.. nine” in the debate 999 times. I think he succeeded. In all seriousness, I’m fucking tired of this goddamned slogan and the people en masse are vehemently opposed to this plan. Then again, there are still a shit ton of Cain Brains supporting this inexperienced hack, who quotes Pokemon, can’t answer tough questions and often admits he spoke without thinking. With all of his weaknesses and with it being incredibly apparent that his inexperience is a major hinderance, this guy is still polling insanely well. Well, lets look at Herman Cain Superstar and his performance this debate.

All things considered, with all the shit he has been put through the last few weeks, Mr. Cain did pretty well overall. That is, if you’re into his flavor of Tea. For starters, he gets the first question and being the show starter he tells us that “We must assure our currency is sound.” That’s laugh-out-loud funny coming from a Federal Reserve insider that spends a lot of his time defending and pimping the most tyrannical institution in our country’s history.

Even though the moderators said the debate was to be focused on economics, the NBC-paid moderators are quick to question Cain’s character over the sexual harassment allegations. Cain brushes off the bullshit attempt to catch him in a “gotcha” question. The crowd erupts when Cain essentially says “I did not sleep with that young intern (or the other women either)!” They asked Cain if voters care about character. Cain responded by saying that voters don’t care about character assassination.

The next time Cain is questioned, he malfunctions (or does he) and starts chanting “Nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine..” over and over. He says that his solution is the only solution to the tax problem. Sure, if you believe hype and pro-Federal Reserve rhetoric. When challenged, once again, at how his plan could possibly stay at the rates of 9-9-9 with government being government, Mr. Cain said that it is transparent and that Americans will make politicians keep the rates at 9. ROFLMFAO! Yeah, just like Americans have been able to get those Tea Party Republicans to balance the budget and solve our economic woes as they promised before the 2010 midterm elections. C’mon people, unless we’re going to start cloning Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Justin Amash, all we’re ever going to get is full of shit candidates like everyone else. Maybe Cain just assumes that Republicans and Democrats are never going to hold office again. But wait.. he’s a Republican, so never mind.

Cain spends almost every other question finding a way to insert “nine.. nine.. nine..” in his answers. When he doesn’t say “nine.. nine.. nine..” he says “I have a bold solution” and then winks nine times.

When not shoving the number nine down our throats like the Count on Sesame Street, he does give us some substance. For instance, after referring to Nancy Pelosi as “Princess Nancy”, Cain tells us that the solution to Obamacare is to pass H.R. 3000. Wait, didn’t Cain say he wouldn’t sign any bill longer than three pages? Well H.R. 3000 is 270 pages. Maybe he meant he’ll sign every three pages. If that’s the case, he’ll have to sign H.R. 3000 into law 90 times! Seems like a waste of BIC SoftFeel Retractable Ballpoint Pens. I need to read up on H.R. 3000 but it seems like crap to me.

Towards the end of the debate, Cain actually talks in rhyme a few times. C’mon dude, really? We need a fucking president man! Are you running for the highest office in the land or are you auditioning for the role of Roadblock in the next “G.I. Joe” movie? FYI bro, the role was given to The Rock.

One thing is for certain, Cain is on to something. Every single time I heard the number nine, I felt a pain in my stomach and the need to drop a shit. I have a feeling that the 999 Plan is the long lost key to discovering the legendary brown note.

Now I’ve got to talk about Cain’s sweetheart, Newt Gingrich. Rumor has it that they were holding hands, when the camera wasn’t on them. Newt’s doesn’t care though, Newt doesn’t give a shit. Honey Badger comes out with a bang and with the first question asked him, his answer receives the loudest pop of the night. Not even because it was a great answer, it was just typical Newt. It was how he said it that got the reaction. Newt, who was considered “dead on arrival” by all the expert pundits when he entered the race, is now the hottest muthafucka in the streets since that time Nas dropped his Jay-Z diss track “Ether” back in 2001. Newt’s proving that he’s Stillmatic.

Out the gate, Newt calls the results of Ben Bernanke’s policies “wreckage”. Newt’s right but I love how all these conservatives are loudly applauding Newt’s criticism of the Federal Reserve when he’s just recycling the same talking points Ron Paul has been using for decades. Yet, conservatives still can’t see that Ron Paul IS the solution. Nope, but they’ll continue to jack his policy points and call him crazy.

Some Newt highlights are when he challenges the Occupy Movement by asking if Bill Gates and Henry Ford were a part of the 1% or the 99% when they started out. Point being, the 99% can make something of themselves if they try. The moderators try to “gotcha” Newt a few times but these people are just like the buzzing of flies to him. He treats “gotchas” like steak and devours the fuck out of them! Newt bashes Dodd-Frank and says that if you want the housing to come back, that the economy must come back first.

When his turn comes up on the Obamacare issue, Newt says that it is a state issue and that we need to focus on brain science. He also uses the moment to challenge Obama to a 3 hour Lincoln-Douglas style debate on health care. While that would be great, Obama would never accept the offer because he knows he’d get destroyed like Apollo Creed in “Rocky IV”.

Other Newt Points include him pimping out the Chilean model for social security and letting the world know that college is not a right therefore tuition isn’t free. In the end, Newt just kills it. Like I’ve said again and again, I don’t agree with several of his points but he has the skill and the fire to run the show, more so than anyone else on that stage. However Dr. Paul is still the best all around, which brings me to him.

Ron Paul had his best debate yet; he keeps getting better and better. I hope he keeps gaining steam through January. Truthfully, it was pretty fortunate for him that this debate was strictly economic. It allowed him to hit his economic points without having to defend himself from confused conservatives that don’t “get” his crazy stance on foreign policy.

Ron Paul says that our debt is unsustainable and that we need to liquify it. He says that our current actions are just prolonging our agony and that drastic changes must be made quickly. He calls spending a disease and points out that spending in and of itself is a tax. He promises to work towards eliminating the income tax altogether by cutting a trillion dollars from the budget each year and curing our fiscal idiocy. Paul also promises that he will try to combat price fixing. He says that the market should determine interest rates. He basically gets a “fuck the Fed” in there without actually saying it.

With Obamacare, Ron Paul says that we have to get the government out of medicine. He is the first to bring up medical savings accounts, which gets support from Mitt Romney.

On education, one of the moderators points out that students loan debt is near a trillion dollars and that Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt. She also points out that college seniors have more than $25,000 in debt on average. A video is then played about how tuition rates have increased by 428% since 1990. The moderator then refreshes us on the fact that Ron Paul has said that he wants to get rid of the Department of Education. She then asks, without the DOE, how would he make college more affordable. Ron Paul points out to the idiot moderator that her argument proved that the Department of Education is obviously ineffective and a total failure. Dr. Paul then points out to the moderator that was so sure of her stupid argument, that the quality of education has gone down, the cost has gone up because of inflation and students are essentially getting ripped off and the burden is falling on the taxpayer. Ron Paul then makes sure that everyone knows, which they already should, that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to be involved in education.

Ron Paul is asked if he thinks that Rick Perry is a crony capitalist. Ron Paul refuses to answer the question and says that people in this country need to understand the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism as many don’t. With that, the debate is over with about ten minutes to spare on the clock.

Luckily for us there were no fights like the last big debate. I mean, that shit was entertaining but in the end, it just took away from the meat and potatoes and made the candidates involved in the bitch and whine fests look like bitches and whiners. This debate just flowed so nice and CNBC did a decent job. Well that is except for including that over-caffeinated freak Jim Cramer. I thought homeboy’s heart was going to explode a few times.

In the end, nothing really changed, everyone looks like they always do. Paul and Newt were on fire, everyone else was typical. Like I said, a couple of these people need to realize that it is time to step the fuck off.

I missed Gary Johnson, as always, but he was tweeting during the debates and in one of his tweets he texted, “I will be proposing a 43 percent reduction in federal spending. 1.5 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending.” God I hope so! He just upped the ante on Ron Paul by half a trillion! If they are going to waste our time with Santorum, Huntsman and Bachmann then Gary Johnson should at least get some time. Ah well, fuck these debate organizers.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade A: Newt Gingrich
Grade C: Mitt Romney
Grade C-: Herman Cain
Grade D: Michele Bachmann
Grade D-: Jon Huntsman
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade F: Rick Perry
Grade I: Gary Johnson

*Taken from Business Insider.

Very important point from Goldman’s Dominic Wilson on yesterday’s “Twist” announcement. Essentially he argues that the part of the operation where the Fed is going to sell $400 billion of short-dated bonds is irrelevant. Only the buying part really effects anything:

Despite the discussion of whether QE3 will follow, for all intents and purposes, QE3 has already begun with yesterday’s shift. While the Fed has been careful to frame the latest shift as a “twist” that leaves its balance sheet neutral, as we have described before the policy is economically more or less equivalent to outright asset purchases. This is because the decision to sell short-dated securities in exchange for bank reserves – the additional transaction relative to the prior purchase program – is largely irrelevant given that the two are very close substitutes when interest rates at the front end of the treasury curve are close to zero (the US 3-year yield is only about 35bp). So yesterday’s policy announcement is not materially different in economic terms from an announcement to buy $400bn of longer-dated USTs through “printing money”. And in fact, given the tilt towards longer durations, the size of purchases is not meaningfully different from QE2.

As for why markets have reacted to negatively:

CONTINUED..