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

I'll say it again...as an independent and far FAR left social liberal...I'd vote for Ron Paul in a Heartbeat! What I like about his ideas he can do with Power of the Executive, what i don't like about him would take congressional approval...but I'm ready for someone who *seems to be* cut from a different cloth than the rest of these corporatist we have the choice of.

If only the MSM would give him a snowballs chance in hell...but seeing how they are wholly owned by big business who interest he directly threatens, they will continue to dismiss him...if by some miracle he did win the nomination i'd be very fearful of his safety.

Ron Paul showing his lack of economics once again. Its a good thing that he wont be running for congress again.

Originally posted by gorgi
Ron Paul showing his lack of economics once again. Its a good thing that he wont be running for congress again.

Yeah, because the complete opposite of what is happening now and for 20 years is bad. Because you know, we are doing so great now. .

I would like very much to know how many actual deposited dollars earned by work dollars comprise my home loan? I would pay that back first and strongly negotiate the validity of the balance.
Why should someone anyone pay interest on a ghost currency?

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
Ron Pauls not perfect, and I dont agree with all he says (this I do)... but at least hes TRYING.

God bless and protect 'em.

Ron Paul 2012. Last chance for America, really. We are in the 11th hour.

edit on 12-7-2011 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-7-2011 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

I actually hate Ron Paul. I may vote for him because I hate every other candidate even more. I disagree with about 75% of what he says, but disgree with everyone else about 90% of the time. It's like the old contest. 1st place wins 1 day in Detroit, 2nd place wins 3 days, and 3rd place wins a week in Detroit. You lose even if you win.

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.

If I may, it is correct that pretending the Federal Reserve is a 'private' bank is not precisely correct, it is equally incorrect to consider it a government entity.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a quasi-scam. It was created along with a never-before seen "intermediate legal status" by virtue of having a Presidential appointment of it's chairperson - who is selected from a list of candidates the Bank itself provides. Do you know what other institutions have a "intermediate legal status" (or at least did)? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Interesting that all of America's "quasi" "intermediate legal status" "government" operations are so firmly entrenched within the worst economic downturns in our history.

Meanwhile the Fed postures itself as a 'supervisor' of economic transactions... a task which it seems to excel at failing.

Congress abdicated the central principle of sovereignty based upon control of currency and financial policy and allowed a collection of private citizens to monopolize both. This group of 'board members' are all private citizens.

We must judge the character of the Federal Reserve bank by it's actions... since it's establishment by the act of 1913, it has 'managed' our nation's economy through crisis after crisis; in each case ensuring that the member banks continuously maintained profit levels unmatched in history, especially during depressions and recessions, while the citizens foot the bill for every flight of fancy some economic priest has the political currency to peddle.

All the Fed has managed to accomplish is to privatize profit while distributing losses to the population from whom all wealth is derived.

By this reasoning we clearly must be prepared to retract the injudicious notion of the 'entity' we call the Fed as somehow operating for the benefit of the citizens... unless we are only concerned with the citizens who have enough money to pay politicians and media for their certification as "too big to fail" or maybe that they (the financial middlemen) are 'more equal' than others (who actually create wealth through labor and productivity.)

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


The problem with reducing bank leverage is that it will strengthen the dollar further and further amplify the unemployment effects of a strong dollar. If we are willing to live in a nation with a natural rate of unemployment of about 15% then great, lets strengthen our money! I jest of course.

To address your other concern, the FED has two mandates, control inflation and reduce unemployment. QE1 and QE2, "read $600B in Quantitative Easing", were implemented disastrously and we saw food and oil prices around the world increase significantly, but they were meant to mitigate unemployment. As we can all plainly see, they didn't work well. The goal was to weaken the dollar and encourage manufacturing home. Neither worked because the world is so heavily interconnected that any policy undertaken in the US would have to be drastic to make a difference. So, as the EU has its very own debt crisis the FED's policies to fix our economy were offset by the problems of the EU and now are being propogated to China.

The secondary policy that you address about the increase in the money supply is correct. However, the FED typically already does that policy. We typically expect about a 3% inflation per year and the FED increases the money supply by lending to its member banks or buying government securities accordingly. So this policy is already being utilized.

The problem isn't monetary policy, no matter how much our leaders wish to blame the FED. The problem is a fiscal issue. Our government needs a stable tax policy, read, "There Are No Statesmen",, such that firms can accurately predict operating costs in the future. We need to eliminate a capital gains tax to encourage entrepreneurial spirit, and we need a balanced budget amendment. If Ron Paul wants my vote, he will stop attacking the FED and advocate those 3 policies. At the minimum, the normal people of the country need to start calling for a constitutional convention for which I would gladly attend, and create a balanced budget amendment with a 3% overspend cushion.

reply to post by gorgi


I certainly am not qualified in economics, but when I hear Mr Paul speak on the issue, he seems to have a better understanding of it than ANY other "expert" who opens their mouth. However if you can "school" us please do. I am here to learn.

reply to post by memarf1


We need a 10 page or less tax code if you ask me!

All income above a certain level is taxed at 15%. No deductions, no loopholes, no credits, no graduated way to apply it. No upper limits, only a lower limit. No special gift tax or inheritance tax or generation skipping tax, just plain old income tax on all W2, 1099, or Investment realized income. Protect the poor working class by a standard deduction of $20,000 per adult dependent and $10,000 per child dependent. Therefore a two income family of 4 would not pay taxes on the first $60,000 they make as a family, and everyone would pay 15% above that amount.

We would save the Federal Government a ton of money on IRS expenditures, we would generate a much higher General Tax Revenue, we would still protect the poor people, we would eliminate the need for expensive tax consultants, and help to inspire start-up businesses that are afraid of the complicated situations they can get into.

That is how you begin to solve the national debt, the unemployment rate, and get the support of the common people behind you!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by memarf1

 

We need a 10 page or less tax code if you ask me!

All income above a certain level is taxed at 15%. No deductions, no loopholes, no credits, no graduated way to apply it. No upper limits, only a lower limit. No special gift tax or inheritance tax or generation skipping tax, just plain old income tax on all W2, 1099, or Investment realized income. Protect the poor working class by a standard deduction of $20,000 per adult dependent and $10,000 per child dependent. Therefore a two income family of 4 would not pay taxes on the first $60,000 they make as a family, and everyone would pay 15% above that amount.

We would save the Federal Government a ton of money on IRS expenditures, we would generate a much higher General Tax Revenue, we would still protect the poor people, we would eliminate the need for expensive tax consultants, and help to inspire start-up businesses that are afraid of the complicated situations they can get into.

That is how you begin to solve the national debt, the unemployment rate, and get the support of the common people behind you!

Sounds way too much like a common sense solution. Amurika would never allow that

Maybe i am missing something here but if it is possible to just wipe out that 1.3 trillion then the problems are solved.
If America can buy its own debt and wipe it out just like that, why is china still allowed to buy American debt?
Here in Europe we should do the same

reply to post by getreadyalready


I agree, but I think it should be $75,000 and 25% up to a million and 35% after that. A two level progressive tax with only two loopholes, kids and family combined income. Most importantly, make it immovable for 15 years. No adjustments to the tax code should be allowed for 15 years. Stability will promote investment!

reply to post by earthling42


Read Memarf's post above. It would be the equivalent of printing the $1.3T. It isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it has repercussions just like any other action of fiddling by the Federal Government.

Instead, how about we just force them to stay within their budget?

Originally posted by memarf1
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I agree, but I think it should be $75,000 and 25% up to a million and 35% after that. A two level progressive tax with only two loopholes, kids and family combined income. Most importantly, make it immovable for 15 years. No adjustments to the tax code should be allowed for 15 years. Stability will promote investment!

No.
What you propose is just another progressive tax system.

A flat tax of say 15% of all income to everyone is fair.
Some paying more is not fair.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by earthling42

 

Instead, how about we just force them to stay within their budget?

Might as well shoot for the moon.

reply to post by memarf1


But why make them pay more for being successful? In reality, they aren't paying anything now. They can afford expensive lawyers and accountants to shelter the money. If we keep the tax affordable, it becomes a bargain to pay the tax instead of paying the lawyers!

All of Ron Paul's plans involve ending the Federal Reserve. I say that as a compliment to Dr. Paul.

reply to post by macman


The economic arguments for reducing taxes to increase investment are sound, however they really don't matter once you reach a tax rate that is less than the rest of the world. There is nothing wrong with a progressive system. What can you do with $1million that you can't do with $750,000?

What can you do with $10million, that you can't do with $6.5million?

However, a flat tax affects the poor greatly. The guy making $30,000 per year and paying 15% now only gets to keep $25,500. There is a lot you can do with that extra $4,500. Buy a new car, go on a good vacation, and so on. That $4,500 gets spent over and over and over, and taxed by the states from sales taxes to fund education among other programs. The guy making $1million doesn't spend that $250,000 that he paid in taxes in its entirety. The one making $10million definitely doesn't spend the $3.5million that he was taxed. Not to mention the fact that pretty much everyone that is against the progressive tax doesn't pay in those top brackets anyway.

Nothing wrong with a progressive tax, but when it starts attacking the middle class, there is something wrong with that. The system needs to be simple, stable, and defend the middle class. A flat tax is an attack on every class and eases off the rich, which makes absolutely no sense. Even George Washington didn't mind paying higher taxes than the rest of us. He funded the Continentals for the majority of the revolution! Imagine that, our rich people volunteering to pay for our military without being taxed to do so! THAT WOULD BE A BEAUTIFUL WORLD!

I like GetReadyAlready's idea, with my tiny modification to a simple progressive tax. Eliminate capital gains taxes and pass a balanced budget amendment and we are set!

Response to GetReadyAlready: Without loop holes, the most expensive team of lawyers in the world won't matter. With lower taxes than the rest of the world, 35% as a top rate, then they aren't leaving since it's a bargain already. Now I refer to my above argument.

Originally posted by memarf1
reply to post by macman

 

. There is nothing wrong with a progressive system. What can you do with $1million that you can't do with $750,000?

.

edit on 12-7-2011 by memarf1 because: Replying to GetReadyAlready

Because why should you be punished for earning more?
It is not money earned by the Govt or anyone else. It is earned by the individual.

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 Federal Reserve exists by a charter created by Congress. The charter can be revoked, and as I understand it, it is up for renewal anyway in 2013. Revoke the charter and the Federal Reserve no longer exists. What doesn't exist cannot laud debt over peoples heads.