Ron Paul Says 1.3 Trillion Dollar Debt Owed To Federal Reserve Is Not Real! Amazing Plan To Save A T

page: 5
138
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 
I understand what you are saying, the the Fed is not a part of the government, but if that is so, then why does our toilet paper say "Fedral Reserve Note," instead of "Silver Certificate," like it did when I was a younger?




posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by memarf1
That is a solution, but that's exactly why we need a FED instead of the Congress being in charge of the monetary system. If they do that, we can expect an increase in food, oil, and commodity prices to increase by about 50% since it would be a permanent increase to the money supply of about 50% which will of course spur very fast inflation. That's essentially the same as creating money from nothing and is exactly what Ron Paul and others have against the FED. Here is a linkrelating to money supply with current levels.

It is true, however, that Timothy Geithner has the power to choose who gets paid with the money that is coming into the treasury. Since the FED will of course be the last paid, without a debt increase(which I also believe raising the ceiling is a BAD idea), we can probably expect inflation anyway since this policy is already on the table. That is unless Obama follows through on his threat to not pay SSI benefits on August 3rd. If that happens then we can expect there to be no inflation since the FED will be paid just like every other creditor. This is not a Ron Paul idea, its simply another tool the Treasury has and knows about.

It is interesting to note that if he does not pay SSI then demand will drop in our economy and we will plummit back into recession(as if we ever truly left). Its also interesting to see that one of the first tests of Keynesian theory, SSI, is proving to be the unwinding of our economy rather than the stimulus that it was created for.

Another example of why we DO NEED a FED and why our government CANNOT stimulate the economy, it
simply does not work!



Side Note: For all of you Ron Paul fans out there, please pick a side. He is totally against the FED as I assume you are too. However, here he is stating that we should ignore the debt to the FED, essentially creating
money from nothing without any attention to the wrecklessness of such a policy, in direct opposition to his stated position on the FED and its monetary policy, and the precise reason he wishes to eliminate the FED; yet, he is advocating for exactly the same policy?

This type of politics is exactly why the FED was created in the first place. Here is a brief history lesson for you, all of the three following are links to governments that had runaway inflation after such policies were enacted. These governments are only the tip of a very large iceberg. When I say runaway inflation, I mean such high prices it might have taken a suitcase of money to buy a loaf of bread:
Germany
USSR
Zimbabwe
Forgive me for stealing a table from the Zimbabwe one, but here are the highest rates of inflation in history:

What all these countries have in common is the lack of a central bank, or a heavily attached monetary agency to their central government. With the exception of the USSR which began by retiring debt as Ron Paul suggests, before they began printing money to pay off foreign creditors.

It is entertaining to hear Ron Paul talk, he is persuasive, and his points are excellent and make sense to the lay person. Unfortunately, he simply does not understand basic economics and so his seemingly good points are troublingly destructive! link he is stating that he is against runaway inflation, of course because we all are, but wishes to undertake inflationary policies.

Additionally, he stated in the recent debate that he wishes to strengthen the US Dollar in order to create domestic jobs. The economy does not work that way. If you want to create jobs you need to weaken the dollar. Watch the question and answer at 1minute 50seconds on this video:
Ron Paul New Hampshire Debate Link
A strong dollar makes foreign imports cheaper, of course discouraging domestic production. A weak dollar encourages investment from abroad, just like we invest in China and India to save money and make prices
cheaper.

The absolute last thing we need to do is to forget about paying ourselves. Its a good temporary measure, but it will certainly destroy the dollar if such a policy is undertaken. There is a bright side, however, with a worthless
dollar there will be a huge influx of foreign capital, manufacturing within the U.S. borders will definitely increase, and we will create a massive number of jobs.

Further Note: I like Ron Paul, he provides sound leadership, and should be admired for his constitutional
principles. He should not, however, be elected president if for no other reason than the fact that he doesn't understand economics. Let him champion the constitution, let him advocate for change and real leadership, but please don't let him direct the economy!
edit on 12-7-2011 by memarf1 because: Clarifying a point on Mr. Paul


You are speaking gibberish. You speak out both sides of your mouth saying "Of course the Fed will be the last to be paid...Of course the fed will be paid just like any other creditor"

You are fear mongering with unsubstantiated predictions of hyperinflation. You are either a propagandist or a fool.

The fed should be abolished. The debt owed is by the federal govt to the federal govt. Congress should regain controll of the treasury.

All your predictions and problems would be put to rest by:
1. Tying the value of the dollar to a basket of commodities such as precious metals and currency.
2. Abolishing speculation on those currencies altogether.

Commodity speculation outside of a very small group of end users provides no real value to citizens. Speculation in and of itself necessarily creates artificial values and manipulation.

It's time for a revolution. With the advent of debit cards most of the reason banks were created in the first place is obsolete. Think about it. In ancient times, travelers were forced to carry large sums of money making them targets for thieves. They also had to convert their currency everytime they entered a foreign country.

Today there is no need for that. We've been brainwashed by bankers to think we really need them. It's time for them to find productive jobs and do a service to the community rather than feed off us like a deadly parasite.

Anybody who supports the fed is part of the disease. I pray you see the light.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


That all makes sense, but was not what I was getting at. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the TARP money given out to make up the difference on the failed securities that those house loans were based on? If you were one of the companies that invested in those securities, and they did not turn a profit, then it should have been, “tough crap, you gambled, and you lost”. The federal government certainly should not have been offering the Banks and Foreign investors money to cover their losses on a gamble. However, because a ton of those securities were bought by foreigners, such as China, we had to bail them out and honor their profits so they would not lose their “confidence” in buying american debt.

I say tough crap'o'lla, they chose to gamble, there are no guarantees in gambling. Caveat emptor , next time check out how secure your investment is before you buy into it. Instead, we had to paid off their gambling debts, and we get stuck paying the interest on the loans that they banks had to take out to pay out those profits to these other countries investors.

The whole thing smells like economic espionage to me anyway, including the gas increase, by countries like the middle east and china.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You are exactly right, I just felt like having a little rant there. The house thing has been on my mind all week.


The TARP thing didn't work, because at the same time they covered the bad debts, they also rewarded the banks by paying interest on reserve money. That had never happened before, and that was the reason the stimulus flopped. The gave the bank money in hopes it would stimulate more lending, but they added the interest payments and the banks had more incentive to NOT lend. They took free money from the government and earned interest on it, while also covering their shoddy lending practice losses. It was an epic fail as a government strategy. Memarf1 can probably explain it better, I am not an economist (thank God!).



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
wow...I'm not even american...but VOTE RON PAUL!!



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by fltcui
I love Ron Paul but.... the Federal Reserve is a private bank. It's not owned by the US. So why would a private bank tear up those bonds and lose the interest on them?
Correct me please if i'm incorrect.

The Fed is not a private bank. I don't know why you guys keep spreading that lie, the Fed is quasi-private. The govt can make the Fed do what ever it wants it to do.



That's the same as saying that the FRB is quasi-public or quasi-little green men.

They are a private concern, each BRANCH is a private concern just to complicate things.

This is a affirmed ruling from 1982,

www.globalresearch.ca...

Of course it may or may not be a precedent in that area of law, and is obviously an accommodation for the 'hungry fathers' to get out of a responsibilty in that case, however the the court statement after appeals was this,

"It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."

observer comment,

"The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.

The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.

Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible. "

Now, who has the more power by default, the US government or the FRB? is it who can demand truth, or those who can keep the biggest secrets?



edit on 12-7-2011 by smurfy because: Addendum.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The gave the bank money in hopes it would stimulate more lending, but they added the interest payments and the banks had more incentive to NOT lend. They took free money from the government and earned interest on it, while also covering their shoddy lending practice losses.


Which goes back to my original point. If these guys want their tax breaks because our economy is based on “Trickle Down Economics” then the government needs to tell them that they better start “trickling”, into this countries economy, or face having all their tax breaks removed, and repayment of all the interest owed on the TAARP funds.

If they bulk at that, and threaten to take their business overseas, you simply tell them that if they do they are embargoed from doing any further business in the US.

Of course they'll never do that because those businesses own our representatives outright.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
When Ron says the bonds were created out of thin air, he's right. They were created on behalf of the US govt to raise money for the US govt by the fed. The fed basically "lent" themselves the money to "buy" unsold bonds to artificially prop up the price.

The whole process is a racket. The process was called quantitative easing. It's commonly known as counterfeiting and is a felony. Ron said the unsold bonds should have never been issued. The free market should determine the amount of American debt the world is willing to buy NOT the amount of money the govt thinks it needs.

The fed has no legitimate claim to the unsold bonds. It's that simple. Let the markets determine values not the obsolete ongoing criminal parasite known as the Federal Reserve.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zarp3333
When Ron says the bonds were created out of thin air, he's right. They were created on behalf of the US govt to raise money for the US govt by the fed. The fed basically "lent" themselves the money to "buy" unsold bonds to artificially prop up the price.

The whole process is a racket. The process was called quantitative easing. It's commonly known as counterfeiting and is a felony. Ron said the unsold bonds should have never been issued. The free market should determine the amount of American debt the world is willing to buy NOT the amount of money the govt thinks it needs.

The fed has no legitimate claim to the unsold bonds. It's that simple. Let the markets determine values not the obsolete ongoing criminal parasite known as the Federal Reserve.


If it is printed by the US government, then it is not counterfeit.
If the government needs money then it needs to get money, Wall street doesn't decide the budget of the US governent.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I've often wondered about the validity of the national debt myself, since it is a number that the FED comes up with based on fiat money created out of thin air. If the currency is vaporware, wouldn't that make the debt created against it vaporware as well? It is obvious to us all at this point that the FED is a ponzi scheme, so I don't know why someone like Ron Paul can't go in there and say "That's it, game over. Everyone out!" and do what he proposes.

I like this idea.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by zarp3333
When Ron says the bonds were created out of thin air, he's right. They were created on behalf of the US govt to raise money for the US govt by the fed. The fed basically "lent" themselves the money to "buy" unsold bonds to artificially prop up the price.

The whole process is a racket. The process was called quantitative easing. It's commonly known as counterfeiting and is a felony. Ron said the unsold bonds should have never been issued. The free market should determine the amount of American debt the world is willing to buy NOT the amount of money the govt thinks it needs.

The fed has no legitimate claim to the unsold bonds. It's that simple. Let the markets determine values not the obsolete ongoing criminal parasite known as the Federal Reserve.


If it is printed by the US government, then it is not counterfeit.
If the government needs money then it needs to get money, Wall street doesn't decide the budget of the US governent.


And here we have someone who doesn't understand the fractional reserve system in the least. Bravo.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi
If it is printed by the US government, then it is not counterfeit.
If the government needs money then it needs to get money, Wall street doesn't decide the budget of the US governent.


The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT synonymous with the US Government.

FRB Not Accountable to Anyone
Here, Alan Greenspan explains how the Federal Reserve is not accountable to any other government entity.

Besides, if our OWN government was printing the money, why would it charge itself interest on said money?

The FRB is a fraud, and the reason our country is in the shape it's in today. How anyone could have currency that isn't backed by anything - and then print as much of it as it wants, is beyond me.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 



Now, who has the more power by default, the US government or the FRB? is it who can demand truth, or those who can keep the biggest secrets?

Well, obviously the govt has far more power. The govt has a monopoly on force, the Fed only has a ``state granted`` monopoly on legal tender. The govt can revoke the Feds charter when ever it wants to. The Fed isn't powerful the way many of you make it out to be. Read Ron Paul's book.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gorgi
 


I would agree with zarp3333, and it is nothing to do with actual printing, but the process is counterfeit.

Bonds are just bits of paper, nothing more, the rest is agreement and acceptance.
So far the US in debt to the FRB and has been for so how long? the FRB however is in default of its responsibility in subject to audit. Any barrister in a court of law would say that's highly suspicious, and a judge could rule on that to any extent according to say, the documented fiscal evidence available provided.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by fltcui
I love Ron Paul but.... the Federal Reserve is a private bank. It's not owned by the US. So why would a private bank tear up those bonds and lose the interest on them?
Correct me please if i'm incorrect.


Because this country is more than capable of printing it's own money instead of paying the Fed to print it for us.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I would rather cast my vote and have someone throw it out than throw away my vote and have someone count it.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by smurfy
 



Now, who has the more power by default, the US government or the FRB? is it who can demand truth, or those who can keep the biggest secrets?

Well, obviously the govt has far more power. The govt has a monopoly on force, the Fed only has a ``state granted`` monopoly on legal tender. The govt can revoke the Feds charter when ever it wants to. The Fed isn't powerful the way many of you make it out to be. Read Ron Paul's book.

Ron paul is not the first to write a book, or the last and I do believe he has something to do with banking, so he should have some credibility too. That is not the point, it is that the system that is highly corruptible in the ease of language in the legislation, amendments blah blah.

Read this link on how the FRB is organised, (actually written by G. Thomas Woodward) and is in support of the FRB and often quoted. I find it either naive or simplistic in its outcome, you can do whatever you want with it.

home.hiwaay.net...

There is also a video of Ron Paul in 1988, even then he knew what he was talking about, the dates don't matter.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 12-7-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Sounds like Dr. Paul pretty much wants to strong arm the Federal Reserve. It's possible, as they don't have a military to back them up.

Chances of Dr. Paul gaining a nomination, winning an election or being able to follow through with this plan: Slim to none as usual unfortunately.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


This is not new news Ron Paul has been trying to get that money forever...



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
When anyone attempts to right social security after it has been pillaged by our government, then I might look.
Actually,once those who pillaged it are in jail, then I will really look.





new topics
 
138
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join