From an interview in the Dallas Morning News,  (The interview was conducted before the January FOMC blackout period began.)

In November, the Federal Reserve launched a $600 billion program to buy up longer-term U.S. Treasury debt, describing the plan as a way to promote a stronger pace of economic recovery.

Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher — a member of the Fed committee that formulates monetary policy — publicly opposed the plan and says he would have voted against it “had I had the vote.”

...

Plosser and Fisher are both seen as potential dissenters. Last week, Plosser said the Fed’s easy money approach could backfire by stoking inflation. Fisher told The News that he expects the bond-buying program to run its course, adding that he “would be wary of further accommodation.”

But dissent is not the goal, said Fisher, who dissented four times in 2008.

“I’m not itching to dissent,” he said.

While the outlook may not have improved enough yet to warrant adjusting our purchase plans in the near-term, I anticipate earnest re-evaluation as economic developments unfold in the months ahead.

While the outlook may not have improved enough yet to warrant adjusting our purchase plans in the near-term, I anticipate earnest re-evaluation as economic developments unfold in the months ahead.

Interest rates are higher, but I think that's mostly because the news is better. So I think the policy has helped.

The entire FOMC knows the history and the ruinous fate that is meted out to countries whose central banks take to regularly monetizing government debt. Barring some unexpected shock to the economy or financial system, I think we have reached our limit. I would be wary of further expanding our balance sheet

{Bullard} still expects unemployment to decline “only slowly” and said he’s not ready to push changes to the Fed’s program of buying $600 billion of Treasuries through June, dubbed QE2 for the second round of quantitative easing.

“It’s too early to make a judgment on that,” said Bullard, 49, who voted in favor of the program in November and rotates into an annual non-voting position this month. “We really only have about two months, and in the macroeconomic world that’s not enough data to go on. So I’d like to see fourth-quarter results in particular and more of the data from 2011.”

From a personal interview, as reported by Bloomberg News

I wish we hadn't done [QE2], but that doesn't mean I want to stop it right now.

If the economy begins to grow more quickly and the sustainability of this recovery continues to gain traction, then the purchase program will need to be reconsidered along with other aspects of our very accommodative policy stance. We are a year and a half into a recovery, although a modest one. The aggressiveness of our accommodative policy may soon backfire on us if we don’t begin to gradually reverse course. On the other hand, if serious risks of deflation or deflationary expectations emerge, then we would need to take that into account as we adjust our policy stance.

I've said this and I'll say it to you again: QE2 was not going to be a big mover of markets or of interest rates. And so it--you could easily imagine that whatever effect it's having is getting lost in the waves of other economic developments that are taking place.

There's this very nice paper by Gagnon and some other people from around the system that estimated the impact of the first LSAP to be around 40 to 80 basis points on 10-year yields. This is 40 to 80 basis points out of $1.5 trillion. We did $600 billion. That's something like 16 to 30 basis points now. That's pretty small.

Another thing that happened is, rightly or wrongly, markets have downsized their expectations of what our eventual purchases might be. I say rightly or wrongly because I have no idea. I don't know if that's right or wrong in terms of what will actually transpire. But I think that some of the reaction that the Fed received--the negative feedback--I think, has led markets to downsize their expectations.

And so our view of how this is supposed to work is it's not just our announcement of $600 billion at stake. It's what do markets expect our eventual stock purchases to be. And that has come down.

I think it was a move in the right direction. Its effect was going to be small.

“If the growth rate of the economy continues to strengthen and looks sustainable, then I am going to be looking for the Fed to react to that,” Plosser said today in an interview on Bloomberg Radio’s “The Hays Advantage,” with Kathleen Hays.   “That may be to cut back on the degree of accommodation in a gradual way. One way would be to begin stopping some of the purchases or slowing them down.”

Asked how he would have voted, Plosser said, “It would have been a close call. The stronger the economy gets, the more attention I am going to be paying” to whether to “begin reducing the amount of accommodation.”

...

Plosser, in an interview at the Philadelphia bank, forecast that the U.S. economy will expand 3 percent to 3.5 percent next year, with inflation accelerating to as much as 2 percent.
“The economy is still in the midst of a modest recovery,” Plosser said. “My confidence in the fact that it is sustainable is growing and has been over the course of the year. In a fundamental way, I think it is sustainable, but it is not going to go like gangbusters.”

"I would like to adjust the {LSAP} program meeting by meeting...I think we can look at this going forward," he said.

"To me it's very much reviewable and changeable. People talk about QE3 and QE4...they think we're going to announce another big number. I don't see it like that. I see it as a continuous process," Bullard said.

60 Minutes: Do you anticipate a scenario in which you would commit to more than $600 billion?

Bernanke: Oh, it's certainly possible. And again, it depends on the efficacy of the program. It depends on inflation. And finally it depends on how the economy looks.

Regarding the rise in nominal interest rates, Bullard said that QE2 puts downward pressure on nominal rates through securities purchases but that the effects of successful policy would put upward pressure on nominal rates.  Therefore, Bullard argued, looking at the level of nominal rates alone is insufficient to judge the success of QE2.

I am still somewhat skeptical that we will see much of a stimulative effect from the new round of purchases. The Fed’s first purchase program worked to lower interest rates, although estimates vary quite a lot. Some studies suggest that the effect was 30 to 60 basis points. Others found a much smaller impact. Yet, these purchases were done at a time when financial markets were highly disrupted and asset risk premiums were extremely elevated. But markets are no longer disrupted, so we cannot expect the same effect this time. Even if we did, it is not clear to me that a further reduction in long-term interest rates will do much to speed up the reduction in the unemployment rate to more acceptable levels.

I am still somewhat skeptical that we will see much of a stimulative effect from the new round of purchases. The Fed’s first purchase program worked to lower interest rates, although estimates vary quite a lot. Some studies suggest that the effect was 30 to 60 basis points. Others found a much smaller impact. Yet, these purchases were done at a time when financial markets were highly disrupted and asset risk premiums were extremely elevated. But markets are no longer disrupted, so we cannot expect the same effect this time. Even if we did, it is not clear to me that a further reduction in long-term interest rates will do much to speed up the reduction in the unemployment rate to more acceptable levels.