An additional large-scale asset program isn’t warranted because there is no risk of falling prices, unlike last year, Lockhart told reporters.

“It requires circumstances we are not facing at the moment -- that is, the onset of a recession, deflationary pressures and seriously rising unemployment,” he said.

I am fully supportive of the actions the FOMC has taken and feel we are running the appropriate monetary policy based on the outlook we have for both growth and inflation.

The conditions in which we would invoke another round of large-scale asset purchases should be pretty demanding conditions, conditions of a really marked deterioration in the economy, perhaps some rise in unemployment, and, or deflationary trends developing.

If I believed further accommodation or fiddling with the yield curve would do the trick and ignite sustainable aggregate demand, I would support it. But the bar for such action remains very high for me until the fiscal authorities do their job by reducing the fiscal and regulatory uncertainty that is holding our mighty economy back.

“My sense of Operation Twist is if it has economic effects, it is more likely to raise inflation that it is to measurably raise growth,” Lacker told reporters after his speech. “I would not have supported it.”

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said the central bank has “plenty of ammunition” left if the economic situation turns “horrific,” while reiterating his view the Fed has provided enough stimulus.

The Fed has potent tools at its disposal and is not now, or ever, "out of ammunition."

“We risk further imbalances,” said Hoenig, 65, who doesn’t vote on the FOMC this year. “We ought to be very, very humble in our expectations of what we can do with this instrument we call monetary policy.”

Both within the FOMC and in public speeches, I have argued that until our fiscal authorities get their act together, further monetary accommodation―be it in the form of quantitative easing or performing “jujitsu” on the yield curve through efforts such as Operation Twist―will represent nothing more than pushing on a string.

Lockhart also said the Fed has other options to provide stimulus, such as cutting the interest rate it pays banks for their reserves held at the central bank, although he noted that is a relatively small thing and not a big economic influence.

Even if the usual effectiveness of monetary policy is being attenuated by the factors that I have mentioned, that conclusion should not be taken as implying that additional monetary accommodation would be unhelpful. Indeed, the opposite conclusion might well be the case--namely, that additional policy accommodation is warranted under present circumstances.

Now, with further slowing in the economy, some call for further monetary accommodation. Let me stress that no decision has been made on this difficult question. However, should such a decision be made, I think it is time for the Committee to discard one-time policy changes with fixed end dates. The Committee in the past never contemplated announcing several hundred basis point moves to be completed at a date certain. Yet that is how the Committee behaves today.

If I believe further accommodation or some jujitsu with the yield curve will do the trick and ignite sustainable aggregate demand, I will support it. But the bar for such action remains very high for me until the fiscal authorities do their job, just as we have done ours. And if they do, further monetary accommodation may not even be necessary.

We want to make sure we’re not pushing on a string... Money is basically free, gas tanks are full. Who steps on the gas pedal? Who engages the transmission?

Asked if the Fed still has the power to deliver momentum to the recovery, Bullard said, “I’m not one to say we are out of ammunition.” Bullard, who is not a voter on the Federal Open Market Committee this year, said the Fed can still stimulate the economy “mostly through balance-sheet policy.”

“The committee has made no decision on ‘Operation Twist,’ so I think the market might be a little bit out in front on this question,” Bullard said. He added that when the Fed last tried this policy, “it didn’t work very well at that time.”