Trump Takes on the Fed

I have read Ellen Brown's book Web of Debt and have been following her attempts to establish public banking in the United States to try to reform our banking system so that we can have a healthy economy that serves we the people.

She seems to understand the history of banking and how banking works better than most.

In a recent article by her she points out what she believes is actually needed, rather than simply relying on who you name to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve:

. . . Interesting proposals for how the Fed could inject new money into the economy include making direct loans for infrastructure (as the Chinese central bank is doing), making low- or no-interest loans to state and local governments for infrastructure, or refinancing the federal debt interest-free.

Better than changing who is at the helm of the central bank would be to change the rules governing it, something only Congress can do. Putting the needs of the American people first, as Trump promised in his campaign speeches, means making the Fed serve Main Street rather than Wall Street.

truthout.org...

I think we need new ideas like that rather than just focusing on replacing people or filling vacancies.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

Did I miss the Trump taking on the Fed part?

Changing interest rates equates to Trump taking on the Fed?

They can't just throw money out there to lend to places without looking at business plans and necessity of the project. I have seen too much loaning going out to business ventures and city projects that just wasted money. If someone wants to start a business to employ people, have it reviewed to see if it will last. What good is sinking money in businesses that will fail in a short time. Same with infrastructure, why sink ten million paving a road that only one farmer lives on. There has to be reasonability used to distribute money, do not waste it.

If he really cared, why the hell did he appoint all Goldman Sachs people to some of the highest offices of finance?

If he really cared, he would have appointed non insiders to clean up the place, such people like Catherine Austin Fitts which would have been a perfect fit.

I still think this is all song and dance but I think his indication to even audit the fed, let alone shed the light of transparency on their evil ways, is a complete pile of horse crap.

Remember what happened to JFK when he took on the fed?

originally posted by: rickymouse
They can't just throw money out there to lend to places without looking at business plans and necessity of the project. I have seen too much loaning going out to business ventures and city projects that just wasted money. If someone wants to start a business to employ people, have it reviewed to see if it will last. What good is sinking money in businesses that will fail in a short time. Same with infrastructure, why sink ten million paving a road that only one farmer lives on. There has to be reasonability used to distribute money, do not waste it.

But that is our economy anymore isn't it? Create money out of thin air and then somehow get this into the hands of the small people instead of the large conglomerates and the connected that usually get first dibs on that fraud stream. Isn't that what food stamps are, massive corporate welfare to the likes of walmart? They pretend this is to help the poor and downtrodden but I would bet that if this money didn't go directly to the large business, it wouldn't exist. And don't forget the likes of JP Morgan that makes a lot of money on the SNAP card program. Why can't the government handle the welfare directly instead of paying these well connected banks?

How many people receive handouts from our government? Somewhere around 45-50%? That doesn't even include all of the federal employees. Where does that money come from? Taxes? How is it a portion of income from less than 50% goes towards full income for so many people anymore including all of the welfare handouts. Creating money out of thin air that will never be repaid.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

It's now two years into his term and he still has yet to do anything regarding the Fed. I agree however, that it will be a good test as to where his allegiance stands -- I don't think any deep state president will touch the Fed.

With two years remaining, do you think he will get to it or is it all just hot air, the promises he made?

It is even in our constitution that the power to issue and regulate money shall belong only to congress. The fed tried 2 times unsuccessfully to keep their central bank in power. I guess the 3rd try was the sweet spot on the night of xmas eve, 1913 through our wonderful woodrow wilson.

At the end of his life, he realized this great mistake:

President Wilson later came to regret signing the bill: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

a reply to: atsgrounded

FED is Qanons secret code for Lebron James.

originally posted by: olaru12
Remember what happened to JFK when he took on the fed?

Except JFK isn't Trump.

Trump took on killary and didn't leave in a bodybag either.

For a man you hate, revere and obsesse about, you'll think he'd been off'd already as a result of his brazen leadership and outspoken he is.


Trump defies all and you'll do well to remember that, highspeed 😌

a reply to: atsgrounded

The reference to Trump taking on the Fed is that he parted from the convention of not criticizing the “independent” Federal Reserve in a recent CNBC interview.

Just crank up the printing presses and let the good times flow? Right! That will work out well.

a reply to: ClovenSky



From U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 . To coin money is mentioned, nothing about printing or paper money.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

usconstitution.net...

originally posted by: olaru12
Remember what happened to JFK when he took on the fed?

And Reagan. And Lincoln.

By the Fed I hope you mean the Banksters.

One and the same.

I rarely agree with you, but excellent observation.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
It is even in our constitution that the power to issue and regulate money shall belong only to congress. The fed tried 2 times unsuccessfully to keep their central bank in power. I guess the 3rd try was the sweet spot on the night of xmas eve, 1913 through our wonderful woodrow wilson.

At the end of his life, he realized this great mistake:

President Wilson later came to regret signing the bill: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Also in the Constitution is the requirement for legal tender.... The Constitution requires that paper currency (“representative money”) may serve as legal tender, but it must represent commodity money, specifically gold and silver coins. Fiat money is not constitutional. Establishing the Federal Reserve changed that without a Constitutional Amendment.

In the U.S. today, a fiat paper currency (the Federal Reserve Note) is legal tender. But that’s not what the Constitution requires. The Constitution requires that paper currency (“representative money”) may serve as legal tender, but it must represent commodity money, specifically gold and silver coins. And it must be freely redeemable in such coins and fully backed by them. The promise made on the note’s face must be true and reliable. To truly have legal tender status, then, a banknote in the U.S. must represent the full amount of ready coin held in reserve by the issuer (fractional-reserve notes aren’t good enough).

We were screwed by Wilson.

The Federal Reserve has a long history so Tweets from an ex Real Estate Mogul about interest rates really shouldn't be taken as presidential guidance. A real threat to the Federal Reserve might be the control of trillions of dollars under independent credit Union management.

The NCUA rather than the FDIC regulates Credit Union activity. Theoretically Credit Unions with enough resources could influence Fed policy.

For example there are investment products insured by the NCUA that offer competition to the products offered by the banks the Fed regulates. Might be possible for public demand to create an inverted yield curve before the Federal reserve was ready for it.

That might be more realistic than Ellen Brown's solution of creating yet another Fractional Reserve System to guarantee against runs on "Public" banks.

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: LiberateEarth
With two years remaining, do you think he will get to it or is it all just hot air, the promises he made?

Nope. Remember, he is literally Hitler. He will appoint himself dictator and all the "Trumpeters" will fall in line with his "final solution".

a reply to: Kharron

To be honest, I don't have an opinion about what Trump is about.

It is very possible that he will do what he's told by the powers that be, because he is either afraid to do otherwise, or he ran for President for the ego trip and is not sincere about campaign promises.

I have a glimmer of hope that he was recruited to run by elements of the military who are tired of being used for nefarious reasons around the world, and that he is doing the best he can in a horrible position in today's United States.

a reply to: rickymouse

Why cant they throw money out there? FDIC insures upto 80%. Banks request 20% down. It's a no risk situation. When the gov runs out of money, they print more.

The man has managed to fulfill quite a handful of his campaign promises already. That's a stellar record when compared to many modern previous ones.

Let's just give him our support and the time he needs.