Ron Paul: US Should Declare Bankruptcy

reply to post by allprowolfy

Originally posted by allprowolfy
How is by painting this black-bleak picture of our current economic statues a call for arms against Ron Paul

So I have a question to the individuals who think Ron Blew this one.

Have you ever went to the bank and your out of funds

On returning home, did you tell your spouse, " owe don't worry we have plenty of cash."

Or did you tell your spouse," we are out of cash, and we need change."

Pretty simple really, i would vote in a heartbeat for anyone that has commonsense and knows, the time to get this leechous entity called the " Federal Reserve," out of the U.S.

There are ways of keeping a countries sovereignty without losing our constitution, you just have to think outside the box a bit

The majority of people dont understand the reasoning behind his statement. If someone takes the time to understand that with the creation of the "Federal Reserve", the US began the downward spiral of a monetary system based on debt, borrowing and interest.

Ron Paul has been an outspoken critic of the "Fed" and for good reason. This entity was created to "prevent financial turmoil". However since the creation of the "Fed", the US has experienced one financial crisis after another, from the Great Depression to the tech bubble to the housing crisis. As a matter of fact, the US dollar has lost 95% of its value since the creation of the "Federal Reserve".

When the banks were in danger of bankruptcy, the American people were ordered to bail out the banks under threat of martial law. Ron Paul's audit the "Fed" bill had over 320 co-sponsors and yet the bankers were still able to thwart the will of the American people.

Calling for a declaration of bankruptcy and a default of interest owed to the "Fed" is a suggestion based on desperately trying to wrestle control away from the banking elite and to return the US to sound debt free currency issued by the government as directed in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

The "Federal Reserve" is actively destroying our dollar and not Congress nor anyone else is able to stop this entity. Lets end the "Fed" before it ends us.

2 choices:

--Surrender to who holds our debt

--Declare the private Corporation called the Federal Reserve BANKRUPT


or option 3.....

---our military retired Generals and Admirals are going to still want to get their lush retirements so....we attack China and Russia to take over the world to be able to continue our economic robbery....even if we risk a extinction level war.

Take your pick.

It seems some of you guys out there still don't get it.

NOT getting rid of the Federal Reserve will only prolong our pain, leaving us as perpetual debt slaves.

The collapse is coming one way or another, it's better to do it now while we initiate it instead of waiting for China to completely stop buying our treasuries or having the rest of the countries in the world declare the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.

And for those of you that think that capitalism is to blame: We don't even have true capitalism here. It's better defined as corporatism or crony capitalism. Not REAL capitalism.

End the Fed, get rid of the IRS, bring our boys (and girls) home... and focus on AMERICA and rebuilding her from the bottom up.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

This issue and headline are non starters. If you watch the video, Ron Paul says "yes" to the idea of bankruptcy but goes on to explain his position, its clearly not a call for a literal declaration. He does however, advocate defaulting on interest payments on money to the "Fed".

As a matter of fact, the economist that Newsmax interviews in the article actually agrees with Ron Paul.

Economist Dean Baker tells Newsmax that Paul’s idea of bankruptcy would cause chaos, but he said he believes not paying the Fed is a good idea. “I’ve been advocating something similar myself,” he said, but admitted, “I’m just not sure of the legality of it.”

Would it be possible to get rid of the 4-5 trillion intragovernmental debt? This is debt the government owes itself.

In other words they took the money from social security/other trust funds and spent it and left an IOU.

Wrote a thread about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway, whether the US has a social security trust fund or not they are still obligated to cover the current recipients that receive social security.

Would it be possible to do away with the trust fund, pay everything out of general revenues, and forgive the debt.

This would mean we would actually be about 10 trillion and debt and would pay lower interest on debt.

It isn't like they are going to be able to pay those trusts funds back anyway.

Possible solution?

reply to post by michael1983l

I know our economy is dying, it has been for the last centuary. Your friend here likes to dazzle with his language skills but there is just no reason or substance to what he writes.

I find JPZ as one of the few who has any real substance in his writing along with eloquence and the capacity to frame an argument so concisely that the mentally challenged can only resort to personal attacks when they realize they have nothing else.

He thinks that relying on the system that brought the world economy to its knees for the 3rd time in 100 years is the best way forward. The good man also seems to believe that economy can be run without rules from Governments, which is a highly naieve thing to think. It is de-regulation of the banks that allowed the toxic lending of money that didn't exist that caused the crisis in the first place.

And here you display your complete lack of reading comprehension skill. God I wish I had a silver eagle for every time I have heard and debunked this nonsensical immature argument. He does not advocate the current system for it is communistic and fascist. The very regulation you tout as our saviour is the very reason for our economic demise. These politically connected banksters have brought the economy to its knees precisely through so called regulation by regulating fair competition out of the market and protecting the market for these politically connected banksters to run roughshod over the people and be bailed out time and again by the very people they have harmed. That is not deregulation as in free market fair competition that is fascism!

Wake up and smell the coffee and turn of the goddamn TV. We have not had a real free market in at least 70 years. If these banksters did not have the politicians in their pockets they would have disappeared long ago. For in a free market where government does not favor and protect their cronies they have to provide a good product or service or go out of business as people will vote with their wallets and take their business elsewhere it is that simple and proven in history in the rare times it operated. It is the only part of democracy that actually works. As it is now there is no free choice or alternative. If you want a banking license you must pledge your loyalty to the Federal reserve and or bankster cartels or their government enforcers will come and arrest you and even shoot you. That is not a free market and deregulation it is fascism! This is the system YOU wish to perpetuate and add to with more fascism/regulation to try and feel protected in your illusionary fantasy-land of government good people bad utopian nightmare.

Allow banks to act as they please in an economy and it will always end in disaster, how many times do we have to go through this same economic collapse brought on by the same banks before we say enough is enough.

Fortunately ATS TOS will not allow me to repeat the string of expletives I am inclined to say upon reading this ridiculous statement so l will just refer you to the above answer that explains why this is a false argument. However I will not hold my breath that you will comprehend it.

The rest of your post has been ignored for being off topic and personal attacks on JPZ

I found this article It has some good points.

Sadly, the author has the crazy idea that the Fed is not a FOR PROFIT scheme to milk the people with debt slavery.

Who would ever dream of a central bank that pursued a policy that serves the nation?

Representative Ron Paul has hit upon a remarkably creative way to deal with the impasse over the debt ceiling: have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds. While at first blush this idea may seem crazy, on more careful thought it is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, it provides a way to have lasting savings to the budget.

The basic story is that the Fed has bought roughly $1.6 trillion in government bonds through its various quantitative easing programs over the last two and a half years. This money is part of the $14.3 trillion debt that is subject to the debt ceiling. However, the Fed is an agency of the government. Its assets are in fact assets of the government. Each year, the Fed refunds the interest earned on its assets in excess of the money needed to cover its operating expenses. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn’t have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed’s destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again. President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership could have close to two years to talk about potential spending cuts or tax increases. Maybe they could even talk a little about jobs.

In addition, there’s a second reason why Representative Paul’s plan is such a good idea. As it stands now, the Fed plans to sell off its bond holdings over the next few years. This means that the interest paid on these bonds would go to banks, corporations, pension funds, and individual investors who purchase them from the Fed. In this case, the interest payments would be a burden to the Treasury since the Fed would no longer be collecting (and refunding) the interest.

To be sure, there would be consequences to the Fed destroying these bonds. The Fed had planned to sell off the bonds to absorb reserves that it had pumped into the banking system when it originally purchased the bonds. These reserves can be created by the Fed when it has need to do so, as was the case with the quantitative easing policy. Creating reserves is in effect a way of “printing money.” During a period of high unemployment, this can boost the economy with little fear of inflation, since there are many unemployed workers and excess capacity to keep downward pressure on wages and prices. However, at some point the economy will presumably recover and inflation will be a risk. This is why the Fed intends to sell off its bonds in future years. Doing so would reduce the reserves of the banking system, thereby limiting lending and preventing inflation. If the Fed doesn’t have the bonds, however, then it can’t sell them off to soak up reserves.

But as it turns out, there are other mechanisms for restricting lending, most obviously raising the reserve requirements for banks. If banks are forced to keep a larger share of their deposits on reserve (rather than lend them out), it has the same effect as reducing the amount of reserves. To take a simple arithmetic example, if the reserve requirement is 10 percent and banks have $1 trillion in reserves, the system will support the same amount of lending as when the reserve requirement is 20 percent and the banks have $2 trillion in reserves. In principle, the Fed can reach any target for lending limits by raising reserve requirements rather than reducing reserves.

As a practical matter, the Fed has rarely used changes in the reserve requirement as an instrument for adjusting the amount of lending in the system. Its main tool has been changing the amount of reserves in the system. However, these are not ordinary times. The Fed does not typically buy mortgage backed securities or long-term government bonds either. It has been doing both over the last two years precisely because this downturn is so extraordinary. And in extraordinary times, it is appropriate to take extraordinary measures—like the Fed destroying its $1.6 trillion in government bonds and using increases in reserve requirements to limit lending and prevent inflation.

In short, Representative Paul has produced a very creative plan that has two enormously helpful outcomes. The first one is that the destruction of the Fed’s $1.6 trillion in bond holdings immediately gives us plenty of borrowing capacity under the current debt ceiling. The second benefit is that it will substantially reduce the government’s interest burden over the coming decades. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration, even from people who may not like its source.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. His most recent book is False Profits: Recovering from the Bubble Economy.

The Federal Reserve is made up of the leading bankers in the country, who process money that is created by the US Treasury. These bankers operate the economy to avoid inflation or recession, thereby protecting their own growth of assets. They have the most to gain or lose, theoretically. To abolish the Federal Reserve would mean putting the control of inflation and recession into the hands of a subcommittee of Congress. It would make little or no difference, as the inputs of information to this subcommittee would be primarily from the banking sector, and the decisions to raise or lower interest rates or create/eliminate money would still be made along the same guidelines to keep the economy stable. Therefore, there is no benefit in eliminating the Fed, unless you think the Fed (the banks) would be working against their own best interests.

reply to post by Jim Scott


It is beyond folly to think that any governing body can control market forces. Market forces are the natural phenomenon as a reaction to the aggregate behavior of buyers and sellers.

Belief that governing bodies can control this natural phenomenon is akin to believing governing bodies can control other natural laws. You may as well advocate legislative acts outlawing earthquakes and tsunamis as those acts of legislation would have the same effect that legislative acts regulating economy do.

Can anyone debate that the United States is not broke?

Not that I like writing it, but 2nd line.

ron paul is a nutbag

I've never taken him seriously as a potus candidate, and after this he doesn't seem capable of keeping his current post either

what a maroon

Originally posted by Jim Scott
The Federal Reserve is made up of the leading bankers in the country, who process money that is created by the US Treasury. These bankers operate the economy to avoid inflation or recession, thereby protecting their own growth of assets. They have the most to gain or lose, theoretically. To abolish the Federal Reserve would mean putting the control of inflation and recession into the hands of a subcommittee of Congress. It would make little or no difference, as the inputs of information to this subcommittee would be primarily from the banking sector, and the decisions to raise or lower interest rates or create/eliminate money would still be made along the same guidelines to keep the economy stable. Therefore, there is no benefit in eliminating the Fed, unless you think the Fed (the banks) would be working against their own best interests.

Just FYI the treasury does not create money. The federal reserve does and loans it into circulation at interest, Also all the banks do when they create a supposed loan. Except there is no loan they create money on the spot based on the signature of the supposed borrower and purport to loan him money and he in his ignorance thinks the bank actually loaned him the money when in fact his credit funded the loan/money creation. And what did he get for them using his credit to create money they use to get millions off of? 20-30 years of debt slavery to a phoney loan...

Having said that I tend to agree with you. Giving control of the money back to congress at this time would not do a lot except one pretty significant thing. It would eliminate the interest on the money created and not rack up a huge national debt. Still congress would spend like drunken sailors.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
ron paul is a nutbag

I've never taken him seriously as a potus candidate, and after this he doesn't seem capable of keeping his current post either

what a maroon

People who think Ron Paul is crazy are of low intelligence IMO. Must be a slow day in the trailer park? Perhaps back to the video games where one can pretend to be someone while their real life is so pathetic.