Chuck Grassley Quotes

If Congress wanted to intervene with the Federal Reserve, well, we created the Federal Reserve. We could uncreate it. But would you want Congress regulating the money supply? We'd have drowned in inflation, or gone bankrupt, decades ago.

I think the Fed is not designed to have effective tools to deal with the economy. It should settle for just controlling the money supply. And - if it insists, it can worry about inflation.

The central focus of what we are doing at the Fed is to keep inflation from accelerating - and preferably decelerating.

The Federal Reserve is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.

The reason inflation was brought down to manageable levels, by the time of Ronald Reagan's re-election, was directly attributable to Jimmy Carter's very courageous act, hiring a Federal Reserve chair, with the charge to induce a recession. That recession was probably the reason he didn't win a second term.

It's pointless to talk to Fed members about economics because they are academics who believe in money-printing. Some of them believe they didn't print enough, and so with these kinds of people, it is like running to the pope. What do you want to tell them?

The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny

Our Federal Reserve has unlimited money raising powers.

The Congress has tasked the Federal Reserve with achieving stable prices and maximum employment - the dual mandate.

If we did go into a recession, something that's always possible for the U.S. or Europe, we could lower interest rates and expand the money supply without worrying about the price of gold.

I'm just opposed to a pure inflation-only mandate in which the only thing a central bank cares about is inflation and not employment.

The Fed's ability to raise and lower short-term interest rates is its primary control over the economy.

The benefit of appointing a hawkish central banker is the increased inflation-fighting credibility that such an appointment brings.

Of course I've already taken a very modest position on the monetary system, I do take the position that we should just end the Fed.

In the 1960s, and stretching back to the 1930s, it was felt by many economists that easy money is a reliable way to increase employment.

Bernanke and company are trying to reflate the economy with almost stated objective of inflation at 2 percent and higher in order to provide some type of safety margin for a future recession. That's where they want to go.

The Fed is the biggest enemy of this economy. In fact, Ben Bernanke, as far as I'm concerned, he's public enemy No. 1. We're never going to have a recovery while this guy's in charge.

To minimize market uncertainty and achieve the maximum effect of its policies, the Federal Reserve is committed to providing the public as much information as possible about the uses of its balance sheet, plans regarding future uses of its balance sheet, and the criteria on which the relevant decisions are based.

It's true that the Federal Reserve faces a lot of political pressure and is unpopular in many circles.

Each money-printing exercise brings about unintended consequences. These unintended consequences are higher inflation rates than had no money been printed.

There is always the potential for a central bank to engage in discretionary monetary policy and to break the one-to-one link between changes in foreign reserves and changes in the money supply.

The Fed [Federal Reserve System], whether it likes it or not, is required to provide adequate reserves to the banking system in order for the government to finance its needs, even when that is inflationary.

Our purpose is to lean against the winds of deflation or inflation, whichever way they are blowing.

The very existence the Federal Reserve System is a safeguard against anything like a calamity growing out of money rates …. We have the power to deal with such an emergency instantly by flooding the street with money.

If you believe in free markets, why do we have to have the Federal Reserve set interest rates?