While I believe monetary accommodation is still called for, in the absence of some shock that derails the recovery, we may well need to begin to gradually scale back the level of accommodation well before the end of 2014.

Evans again expressed his strong support for continued easy policy from the Fed, saying "we need strong accommodation. I don't see the need going away" until the economy is sustaining growth around 4% for a sustained period.

Unemployment “could well be above 7 percent, and I think we have to prepare for that,” Lacker said. “I think it’s a misconception to think we have to get unemployment all the way down to five or some number like that before we raise rates.”

“One threshold [for another round of asset purchases] for me, in my own thinking, would be if we see economic growth slow to the point where we’re not seeing further progress in bringing the unemployment rate down,” Williams said today on a panel in Beverly Hills, California. Stimulus might also be needed if inflation dropped “significantly” below the Fed’s 2 percent goal, he said. 

Those aren’t “the circumstances I currently expect,” said Williams, who votes on the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee this year. If additional rounds of bond buying are warranted, the Fed may purchase more mortgage-debt, or extend its program to push out the average-maturity of its holdings, dubbed Operation Twist, he said.

We have been very accommodative, and we remain prepared to do more as needed to make sure that this recovery continues and that inflation stays close to target. So in particular, we will continue to assess, you know, looking at the economic outlook, looking at the risks, whether or not unemployment is making sufficient progress towards its longer run normal level and whether inflation is remaining close to target. And if appropriate -- and depending also on assessment of the costs and risks of additional policy actions -- we remain entirely prepared to take additional balance sheet actions if necessary to achieve our objectives. So those tools remain very much on the table, and we will not hesitate to use them, should the economy require that additional support.

My own belief is that we will need to initiate our somewhat lengthy exit strategy sometime in the next six to nine months or so, and that conditions will warrant raising rates sometime in 2013 or, possibly, late 2012.

The dates change, but the song remains the same.  See Kocherlakota's comments one year earlier.

"There's so much liquidity in the system," Fisher said. "Why would we add more unless we had a crisis on our hand or something was happening where we're seeing significant slippage in the economy?"

I consider a highly accommodative policy stance to be appropriate in present circumstances. But considerable uncertainty surrounds the outlook, and I remain prepared to adjust my policy views in response to incoming information. In particular, further easing actions could be warranted if the recovery proceeds at a slower-than-expected pace, while a significant acceleration in the pace of recovery could call for an earlier beginning to the process of policy firming than the FOMC currently anticipates.

More broadly, these considerations help illustrate why it would be imprudent to adhere mechanistically to the prescriptions of any single policy rule. Such rules can serve as useful benchmarks for facilitating monetary policy deliberations and communications, but a dose of good judgment will always be essential as well.

Risk-management considerations strengthen the case for maintaining a highly accommodative policy stance longer than might otherwise be considered appropriate. In particular, the FOMC has considerable latitude to withdraw policy accommodation if the economic recovery were to proceed much faster than expected or if inflation were to come in higher. In contrast, if the recovery faltered or inflation drifted down, the Committee could provide additional stimulus using its unconventional tools, but doing so involves costs and risks. Given the unprecedented nature of the current economic situation and the limits placed on conventional policy by the zero lower bound on interest rates, these issues of risk management take on special importance.

More broadly, these considerations help illustrate why it would be imprudent to adhere mechanistically to the prescriptions of any single policy rule. Such rules can serve as useful benchmarks for facilitating monetary policy deliberations and communications, but a dose of good judgment will always be essential as well.

One approach I find helpful in judging an appropriate path for policy is based on optimal control techniques...This highly accommodative policy path generates, according to the FRB/US model, a notably faster reduction in unemployment than in the baseline outlook.

Lockhart also said that he remains comfortable with the Fed's conditional pledge to keep interest rates very low through late 2014, saying the language "is still broadly aligned with the reality of the economy and the forecast."

My own belief is that we will need to initiate our somewhat lengthy exit strategy sometime in the next six to nine months or so, and that conditions will warrant raising rates sometime in 2013 or, possibly, late 2012.

“The probability of needing to do additional stimulus is lower,” Williams told reporters after delivering a speech in San Francisco today. “Relative to a few months ago, I think that the downside risks to the U.S. economy have lessened.”

With my current outlook, I think our policy stance is still the one best suited to foster steady gains in output and employment and to maintain stable prices.

The Fed may need to raise interest rates as soon as the end of 2012 or early next year, Plosser said in response to questions from reporters.