Why are we ignoring simple, painless debt solution?

[Google]

All of the member banks. as shareholders, they get a portion of interest earned.

Listen, if you believe taking this action would have a detrimental effect on the shareholders you are incorrect.

Say the interest on those T-bills are paid--with made up money--do those shareholders benefit?

You never did say who those shareholders are?

I said who the shareholders are. Read my post again.

It would have a detrimental effect on the shareholders b/c they would not receive their portion of the interest payments, nor would they have access to the securities held by the Fed.

Would that be worth it? I don't know.

This misconception that taking this action, dissolving the QE2 debt from the books, would have some adverse reaction to the Federal Reserve or its shareholders is completely false.

The best argument that can be made against this action is that somehow it would undermine the Fed's ability to manipulate--regulate--the money supply.

This God-like fourth branch of the federal government, who is accountable to absolutely no one, literally fabricated money to purchase these T-bill assets and is charging interest to all of children's future, and the majority of people responding believe that nameless shareholders should profit off this outrageous QE program.

It is within the law, and no the economic consequences are not anywhere as near dire as some on this thread have attempted to make it out to be.

 

[Stashman]

Yes, and that inflation and further devaluing of the Dollar would be made worse if the Government dissolved the Debt it owes the Fed. Basically they printed money out of thin air on the promise that the Gov owed 1 Trillion to the Fed. So what we would be doing is saying, ah never mind. We just going to admit that what we did was invent phony Money out of thin air. Not backing it up means all the money out there is devalued as the total value is spread out over the additional 1 plus Trillion in Printed and not backed up Money.

So Basically we would be deliberately hurting our Economy more for what? To buy some time and not have this debate until next year?

I for one believe we need to have this Debate now, not later.

Where were you telling everyone the economic dangers of the QE2 program, which had a much more detrimental effect than this would have.

Um With all due Respect. I was screaming at the top of my lungs. DON'T DO IT. I have been chastising everyone involved for creating money out of thin air ever since they first suggested it.

To Me this shit brings back learning about Pre WWII Germany and the collapse of the wymark republic, and I have been saying so for ever, so please don't ask me where I was on it. I was there.

Our dollars worth 4 cents today as compared to what it was worth in 1913 the year of the Federal Reserve Act. Today we live in a world of inflation and deflation thus reeking havoc on our dollar and our economy. Gold does not fluctuate up and and down, it either stays steady or goes up in value. Had we of stayed with gold backed currency as we once had in this country than our dollar would have the purchasing power of over $22.00 as compared to 1913.

Great post, and thanks for putting it out there. I think this is the most important issue facing us right now.

End the Fed,
Elect Ron Paul 2012

 

[Google]

The media has reminded the American people several times throughout this debt limit debate that the national debt currently stands at $14 trillion, of which conservatively $1 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve obtained that debt through its complicated quantitative easing programs (Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) –more specifically QE2-- but it is debt that the government essentially owes itself.

Why?

“The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90 percent of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total federal debt at $14.3 trillion.” (Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com)

Neither Republican, Democrat nor the media, despite all telling Americans that Armageddon will occur if something isn’t done, have brought up the fact that Congress could simply tell the Federal Reserve to dissolve the Treasury Bills it currently holds, effectively reducing the national debt by $1 trillion.

Unlike all other proposals this one doesn’t endanger anyone’s retirement or pension because it is money that was literally fabricated from thin air.

I believe we can all agree, from right to left, that this debt is in fact phony debt. Even the progressive/leftist ‘The New Republic’ (Ron Paul) agrees that this is a painless solution that would reduce the debt by $1 trillion and would give Congress needed time to address this issue.

Of course this isn’t my idea—I wish I were so clever—it is the proposal that Congressman Ron Paul has been pushing since the beginning of this whole debt ceiling debate.

We do not have a debt crisis - it's all a wingnut fabrication:

The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt | Moneyland | TIME.com

We do have a very real debt ceiling crisis - also created by the wingnuts.

Judging by your profile picture and your posts I'm assuming you do copious amount of illicit drugs.

From your Times article:

"Yes, the federal debt has grown by nearly $3 trillion dollars in the past three years. And yes, the dollar amount of that debt is quite large (in excess of $14 trillion and headed toward $15 trillion should the ceiling be raised). But large numbers are not the problem. The U.S. has a large economy (slightly larger than that debt number). And, crucially, we have very low interest rates." (The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt | Moneyland | TIME.com)

The entire premise of the article is that the national debt is insignificant because the amount it takes to service the debt is low, around 15% of annual revenues.

First I'd like to point out that I've said that to you several times and you have always ignored that fact and pressed on with the 'we will inevitably default'.

Second, this is akin to someone who has completely maxed out their credit card and is constantly spending far beyond what they bring in rationalizing getting a higher credit limit because "Hey, I can afford the minimum monthly payments". The article admits that the debt is only slightly larger than America's "large economy".

So you believe crushing debt that rivals the country's GDP is fine because it is easily serviceable?

 

[Stashman]

The media has reminded the American people several times throughout this debt limit debate that the national debt currently stands at $14 trillion, of which conservatively $1 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve obtained that debt through its complicated quantitative easing programs (Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) –more specifically QE2-- but it is debt that the government essentially owes itself.

Why?

“The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90 percent of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total federal debt at $14.3 trillion.” (Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com)

Neither Republican, Democrat nor the media, despite all telling Americans that Armageddon will occur if something isn’t done, have brought up the fact that Congress could simply tell the Federal Reserve to dissolve the Treasury Bills it currently holds, effectively reducing the national debt by $1 trillion.

Unlike all other proposals this one doesn’t endanger anyone’s retirement or pension because it is money that was literally fabricated from thin air.

I believe we can all agree, from right to left, that this debt is in fact phony debt. Even the progressive/leftist ‘The New Republic’ (Ron Paul) agrees that this is a painless solution that would reduce the debt by $1 trillion and would give Congress needed time to address this issue.

Of course this isn’t my idea—I wish I were so clever—it is the proposal that Congressman Ron Paul has been pushing since the beginning of this whole debt ceiling debate.

We do not have a debt crisis - it's all a wingnut fabrication:

The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt | Moneyland | TIME.com

We do have a very real debt ceiling crisis - also created by the wingnuts.

I have shared this with some other threads but can think of no one that needs to watch it more than you. Get educated.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaHSWjbMvQ0]‪The American Dream? - FULL LENGTH‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Google]

Where were you telling everyone the economic dangers of the QE2 program, which had a much more detrimental effect than this would have.

Um With all due Respect. I was screaming at the top of my lungs. DON'T DO IT. I have been chastising everyone involved for creating money out of thin air ever since they first suggested it.

To Me this shit brings back learning about Pre WWII Germany and the collapse of the wymark republic, and I have been saying so for ever, so please don't ask me where I was on it. I was there.

Our dollars worth 4 cents today as compared to what it was worth in 1913 the year of the Federal Reserve Act. Today we live in a world of inflation and deflation thus reeking havoc on our dollar and our economy. Gold does not fluctuate up and and down, it either stays steady or goes up in value. Had we of stayed with gold backed currency as we once had in this country than our dollar would have the purchasing power of over $22.00 as compared to 1913.

Great post, and thanks for putting it out there. I think this is the most important issue facing us right now.

End the Fed,
Elect Ron Paul 2012

America's currency was once as good as gold, but since the Federal Reserve Act was passed and signed into law the dollar has lost 90% of its value.

People are so incredibly uninformed about this independent agency that literally has much more power and authority than the executive or legislative branches of government.

If the Fed decides to go ahead with QE3 there is nothing the federal government and our elected representatives can do to stop them. They literally, and it isn't any more complicated than this, print money and buy Treasury bills and people on this thread say "pay them the interest, or the sky will fall".

 

[editec]

I'm sure the member-owner banks of the Fed would be thrilled!

And who are the stake holders of the federal reserve?

Approximately 38 percent of the 8,039 commercial banks in the United States are members of the Federal Reserve System. National banks must be members; state-chartered banks may join if they meet certain requirements. The member banks are stockholders of the Reserve Bank in their District and as such, are required to hold 3 percent of their capital as stock in their Reserve Banks.

The Structure of the Federal Reserve System - Federal Reserve Education

 

[uscitizen]

Where were you telling everyone the economic dangers of the QE2 program, which had a much more detrimental effect than this would have.

Um With all due Respect. I was screaming at the top of my lungs. DON'T DO IT. I have been chastising everyone involved for creating money out of thin air ever since they first suggested it.

To Me this shit brings back learning about Pre WWII Germany and the collapse of the wymark republic, and I have been saying so for ever, so please don't ask me where I was on it. I was there.

Our dollars worth 4 cents today as compared to what it was worth in 1913 the year of the Federal Reserve Act. Today we live in a world of inflation and deflation thus reeking havoc on our dollar and our economy. Gold does not fluctuate up and and down, it either stays steady or goes up in value. Had we of stayed with gold backed currency as we once had in this country than our dollar would have the purchasing power of over $22.00 as compared to 1913.

Great post, and thanks for putting it out there. I think this is the most important issue facing us right now.

End the Fed,
Elect Ron Paul 2012

So gold only goes up in value?

 

[candycorn]

The media has reminded the American people several times throughout this debt limit debate that the national debt currently stands at $14 trillion, of which conservatively $1 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve obtained that debt through its complicated quantitative easing programs (Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) –more specifically QE2-- but it is debt that the government essentially owes itself.

Why?

“The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90 percent of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total federal debt at $14.3 trillion.” (Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com)

Neither Republican, Democrat nor the media, despite all telling Americans that Armageddon will occur if something isn’t done, have brought up the fact that Congress could simply tell the Federal Reserve to dissolve the Treasury Bills it currently holds, effectively reducing the national debt by $1 trillion.

Unlike all other proposals this one doesn’t endanger anyone’s retirement or pension because it is money that was literally fabricated from thin air.

I believe we can all agree, from right to left, that this debt is in fact phony debt. Even the progressive/leftist ‘The New Republic’ (Ron Paul) agrees that this is a painless solution that would reduce the debt by $1 trillion and would give Congress needed time to address this issue.

Of course this isn’t my idea—I wish I were so clever—it is the proposal that Congressman Ron Paul has been pushing since the beginning of this whole debt ceiling debate.

No.

The best way to do the deal is mix serious spending cuts with revenue enhancement. Put a payroll tax on worker's paychecks for a few months and dedicate that to paying off the deficit while cutting defense and social programs.

Pay your bills then prevent the acquisition of new ones.

 

[Google]

Um With all due Respect. I was screaming at the top of my lungs. DON'T DO IT. I have been chastising everyone involved for creating money out of thin air ever since they first suggested it.

To Me this shit brings back learning about Pre WWII Germany and the collapse of the wymark republic, and I have been saying so for ever, so please don't ask me where I was on it. I was there.

Our dollars worth 4 cents today as compared to what it was worth in 1913 the year of the Federal Reserve Act. Today we live in a world of inflation and deflation thus reeking havoc on our dollar and our economy. Gold does not fluctuate up and and down, it either stays steady or goes up in value. Had we of stayed with gold backed currency as we once had in this country than our dollar would have the purchasing power of over $22.00 as compared to 1913.

Great post, and thanks for putting it out there. I think this is the most important issue facing us right now.

End the Fed,
Elect Ron Paul 2012

So gold only goes up in value?

No, but it intrinsically maintains it's value.

Gold is at record heights not because it has gained value so much as the dollar has lost value. Why is it economists always routinely use the price of gold to judge the value and stability of a currency.

 

[Google]

The media has reminded the American people several times throughout this debt limit debate that the national debt currently stands at $14 trillion, of which conservatively $1 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve obtained that debt through its complicated quantitative easing programs (Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) –more specifically QE2-- but it is debt that the government essentially owes itself.

Why?

“The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90 percent of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total federal debt at $14.3 trillion.” (Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com)

Neither Republican, Democrat nor the media, despite all telling Americans that Armageddon will occur if something isn’t done, have brought up the fact that Congress could simply tell the Federal Reserve to dissolve the Treasury Bills it currently holds, effectively reducing the national debt by $1 trillion.

Unlike all other proposals this one doesn’t endanger anyone’s retirement or pension because it is money that was literally fabricated from thin air.

I believe we can all agree, from right to left, that this debt is in fact phony debt. Even the progressive/leftist ‘The New Republic’ (Ron Paul) agrees that this is a painless solution that would reduce the debt by $1 trillion and would give Congress needed time to address this issue.

Of course this isn’t my idea—I wish I were so clever—it is the proposal that Congressman Ron Paul has been pushing since the beginning of this whole debt ceiling debate.

No.

The best way to do the deal is mix serious spending cuts with revenue enhancement. Put a payroll tax on worker's paychecks for a few months and dedicate that to paying off the deficit while cutting defense and social programs.

Pay your bills then prevent the acquisition of new ones.

I certainly agree that reform is needed to ensure that the federal government simply doesn't spend us to the next debt ceiling.

BUT the current situation that faces the country demands that a solution be made by Aug. 2. Taking this action would give Congress another year to work on reforms.

 

[candycorn]

The media has reminded the American people several times throughout this debt limit debate that the national debt currently stands at $14 trillion, of which conservatively $1 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve obtained that debt through its complicated quantitative easing programs (Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) –more specifically QE2-- but it is debt that the government essentially owes itself.

Why?

“The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90 percent of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total federal debt at $14.3 trillion.” (Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com)

Neither Republican, Democrat nor the media, despite all telling Americans that Armageddon will occur if something isn’t done, have brought up the fact that Congress could simply tell the Federal Reserve to dissolve the Treasury Bills it currently holds, effectively reducing the national debt by $1 trillion.

Unlike all other proposals this one doesn’t endanger anyone’s retirement or pension because it is money that was literally fabricated from thin air.

I believe we can all agree, from right to left, that this debt is in fact phony debt. Even the progressive/leftist ‘The New Republic’ (Ron Paul) agrees that this is a painless solution that would reduce the debt by $1 trillion and would give Congress needed time to address this issue.

Of course this isn’t my idea—I wish I were so clever—it is the proposal that Congressman Ron Paul has been pushing since the beginning of this whole debt ceiling debate.

No.

The best way to do the deal is mix serious spending cuts with revenue enhancement. Put a payroll tax on worker's paychecks for a few months and dedicate that to paying off the deficit while cutting defense and social programs.

Pay your bills then prevent the acquisition of new ones.

I certainly agree that reform is needed to ensure that the federal government simply doesn't spend us to the next debt ceiling.

BUT the current situation that faces the country demands that a solution be made by Aug. 2. Taking this action would give Congress another year to work on reforms.

So would the Senate plan.

 

[Google]

No.

The best way to do the deal is mix serious spending cuts with revenue enhancement. Put a payroll tax on worker's paychecks for a few months and dedicate that to paying off the deficit while cutting defense and social programs.

Pay your bills then prevent the acquisition of new ones.

I certainly agree that reform is needed to ensure that the federal government simply doesn't spend us to the next debt ceiling.

BUT the current situation that faces the country demands that a solution be made by Aug. 2. Taking this action would give Congress another year to work on reforms.

So would the Senate plan.

90% of the interest the federal government pays on those Treasury bills purchased by the FED goes back to the Treasury.

What in the OP do you disagree with?

Wiping out $1 trillion from the national debt would allow the current debt ceiling to remain at $14 trillion and provide enough to time to ensure we don't reach that limit again.

Continuing like this is going to ensure default through inflation. Adding $2 trillion to the debt is not the solution. That is what the Senate plan is. There are no specific cuts made, but ensures that additional debt will be available immediately.

 

[Big Fitz]

The fact is there are no simple painless solutions to debt.
Just one solution, pay what you owe.

I keep thinking of that song from the movie 'M*A*S*H'...."Suicide is painless...it brings on many changes....."

Obamas 2012 campaign theme song, I'm sure.

Really? I keep hearing "And She'll have fun fun fun till her Daddy takes the T-Bird away!"

The credit cards are about to be cut up because for decades we've elected economic nincompoops who forgot that because it was not their money they needed to be more responsible than if it WAS their money.

 

[candycorn]

I certainly agree that reform is needed to ensure that the federal government simply doesn't spend us to the next debt ceiling.

BUT the current situation that faces the country demands that a solution be made by Aug. 2. Taking this action would give Congress another year to work on reforms.

So would the Senate plan.

90% of the interest the federal government pays on those Treasury bills purchased by the FED goes back to the Treasury.

What in the OP do you disagree with?

Wiping out $1 trillion from the national debt would allow the current debt ceiling to remain at $14 trillion and provide enough to time to ensure we don't reach that limit again.

Continuing like this is going to ensure default through inflation. Adding $2 trillion to the debt is not the solution. That is what the Senate plan is. There are no specific cuts made, but ensures that additional debt will be available immediately.

Theres better ways to skin the cat.

Start with a blank sheet of paper next year. Zero dollars spent.

Justify EVERY expenditure in every department. Take 2 weeks to do it so you allow for micro slicing of the budget for everything. One case in point is DHS spending. Talk about out of control, grantees have bought everything from MREs to firetrucks to combat the terror threat. While MREs for first responders on long-term deployments and fire trucks are useful items, there are other priorities.

Zero based budgeting would be the best, most politically ascertainable thing they could do immediately.

The real problem, in my view, is that our business plan--Constitution--is over 200 years old. It is too vague for a government staffed by those not dealing in good faith and unable to agree on facts much less policies based on those facts.

I don't want to re-write the constitution and it's amendments, I want to strengthen them. For example, If Congress has the power to declare war, damn it, no American should be ordered to be deployed unless Congress agrees. Now for expediency sake, I'd be happy with the Speaker, President Pro-Tem (sp?) of the Senate, Vice President, and a few others being the ones who have to vote but it shouldn't be tied up in what one man wants to do whether that man is George Bush or Barack Obama or John Huntsman or Mitt Romney. It shouldn't happen. The constitution should mean something.

Back to the matter at hand. Currently, the budget is whatever passes without any tie to reality whatsoever. You put language into the document tying the budget to the amount of money you take in and low and behold you have fiscal responsibility built into the system. This is why I do not support the idea--no texts exists yet--of a BBA. If you take in X, you spend X? No. That means that taxes need to be increased to match what is spent? Are you kidding me? On the other hand, if they want to spend Y, is all of "Y" necessary? Do we need to subsidize tobacco farmers on one end and then have a DHHS that fights tobacco use on the other? Probably not. Just an example again. So I say you take in X and you write into the constitution that the federal budget will not go past X-10% lets say. That means that a dime of every dollar Uncle Sam collects is not spent...by law. The money is discretionary, for things like wars, social programs due to unforeseen or catastrophic events, or refunded.

I would go much further than the fiscal side of the coin though. I'd write into the constitution a new way to elect House members on a system somewhat like a zip-code lottery. Meaning that if Arizona has 10 districts, they take all of the zip codes and assign, at random, the zip codes to the 10 districts. Each member will have rural areas, urban areas, areas with more minorities and less minorities, with Indian reservations, coastlines, national parks, etc... Instead of the safe districts the two-party system has created, you break the mold and launch a responsive representation. I'd make all Presidential and Senatorial advertising free of charge to the candidate so they don't have to raise tons of money to simply run for or hold office. I'd legislate through constitutional language that there be presidential debates at fixed times before an election. I'd make general elections last a week so any poll improprieties are investigated with time allowed for "we the people" to cast ballots.

Not replace the document, perfect it for the 21'st century America that, in many ways, disdains the document.

 

[Sactowndog]

"Paul's plan: Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It's fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed. A trillion and a half dollars is currently about what spending is expected to exceed tax revenue in 2011."

I think Ron Pauls aim is to destroy the Fed and put the US back on the gold standard. Given that intent the plan makes sense. If that is your objective.

 

[8537]

Listen, if you believe taking this action would have a detrimental effect on the shareholders you are incorrect.

Say the interest on those T-bills are paid--with made up money--do those shareholders benefit?

You never did say who those shareholders are?

I said who the shareholders are. Read my post again.

It would have a detrimental effect on the shareholders b/c they would not receive their portion of the interest payments, nor would they have access to the securities held by the Fed.

Would that be worth it? I don't know.

This misconception that taking this action, dissolving the QE2 debt from the books, would have some adverse reaction to the Federal Reserve or its shareholders is completely false.

How can removing interest payment to an entity not adversely impact that entity?

 

[8537]

Our dollars worth 4 cents today as compared to what it was worth in 1913 the year of the Federal Reserve Act. Today we live in a world of inflation and deflation thus reeking havoc on our dollar and our economy. Gold does not fluctuate up and and down, it either stays steady or goes up in value. Had we of stayed with gold backed currency as we once had in this country than our dollar would have the purchasing power of over $22.00 as compared to 1913.

Great post, and thanks for putting it out there. I think this is the most important issue facing us right now.

End the Fed,
Elect Ron Paul 2012

So gold only goes up in value?

No, but it intrinsically maintains it's value.

Gold is at record heights not because it has gained value so much as the dollar has lost value. Why is it economists always routinely use the price of gold to judge the value and stability of a currency.

Gold is not at record highs because the dollar has lost value - gold is at record highs because it is a substitute for other investments, and those investments scare the shit out of people right now.

Gold prices rising is a flight to safety. The price will fall when the economy stabilizes, whenever that may be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sure the member-owner banks of the Fed would be thrilled!

And who are the stake holders of the federal reserve?

All of the member banks. as shareholders, they get a portion of interest earned.

No they don't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The media has reminded the American people several times throughout this debt limit debate that the national debt currently stands at $14 trillion, of which conservatively $1 trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve obtained that debt through its complicated quantitative easing programs (Quantitative easing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) –more specifically QE2-- but it is debt that the government essentially owes itself.

Why?

“The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90 percent of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total federal debt at $14.3 trillion.” (Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com)

Neither Republican, Democrat nor the media, despite all telling Americans that Armageddon will occur if something isn’t done, have brought up the fact that Congress could simply tell the Federal Reserve to dissolve the Treasury Bills it currently holds, effectively reducing the national debt by $1 trillion.

Unlike all other proposals this one doesn’t endanger anyone’s retirement or pension because it is money that was literally fabricated from thin air.

I believe we can all agree, from right to left, that this debt is in fact phony debt. Even the progressive/leftist ‘The New Republic’ (Ron Paul) agrees that this is a painless solution that would reduce the debt by $1 trillion and would give Congress needed time to address this issue.

Of course this isn’t my idea—I wish I were so clever—it is the proposal that Congressman Ron Paul has been pushing since the beginning of this whole debt ceiling debate.

Why pussyfoot around? Cancel all the Treasuries held by the Trust Funds.
That'll give you more than $4 trillion to play with.

 

[American Horse]

Better yet just end the FED. Why do we need them?

To keep the monetary system out of the hands of the politicians.