Ron Paulites - please explain - how do we end the fed?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Face it....You have neither common sense nor any ******* idea what you're babbling about.

unsubscribe

Please enlighten us as to how the profits of the Fed can pay off the debt when the Fed makes less money per year than the U.S. rings up in deficit.

it would appear to violate basic arithmetic, so please, explain (I know you can't, but I'm asking anyway).

How in the blue ******* hell can anyone really know what the Fed profits when we can't even get a decent audit out of their asses? We got a half assed one and apparently they've gone berzerk backstopping over $10 trillion in bad paper.

The assets of the Fed are public information. You can't find the balance sheet here:
FRB: Fed's balance sheet - Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet

We know their assets, we know the income from the assets, so we know their income.

Its not nearly enough to cover the deficit.

 

[justaluckyfool]

You left out an important step. When the Bank 1 loans money to Mr. B from Mr. A's deposit, Mr. B is going to SPEND the money - on a house, a business, a farm, or anything - it doesn't just sit in Bank 1. The folks who get the money Mr. B spends can deposit it in Bank 1 or Bank 2 or Bank 454 - any bank they like. What's more, Mr. B might not be able to pay the money back to Bank 1 - and then Bank 1 (or their deposit insurer) is on the hook for Mr. A's deposit.

ONE: You left out an important step. When the Bank 1 loans money to Mr. B from Mr. A's deposit, Mr. B is going to SPEND the money - on a house, a business, a farm, or anything - it doesn't just sit in Bank 1.
OK,Mr B spends the money (that which the bank electronically printed and entered in Mr B account)
Do you now see that the Bank actually made a copy of the real money STILL in the initial depositors account which under normal circumstances would just sit there.
HEY,you got that that right and if Mr B, and C, and D ,and F , and G, and H, I, J, all default the Bank stands to lose up to $900,000 .Money that they created by fractional reserve banking all started with one deposit of $100,000. Guess where we are today. This is what the Bank has been doing with trillions of dollars. "The pound of flesh" is being demanded.Payback time.Bank made up $900,000 with no money of their own,not even the first loan.
"There's the rub" Why are we allowing private banks to "print" money,lend it out charging interest and keeping all the profit.
THEY WILL TELL YOU, "OMG , either we must let them fail, or we will have to give them up to $235 Trillion (that's the amount quoted by The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency states that US institution have in deviratives)
****I am going to sign off this site ,I do not believe it is time effective.
Anyone out there that is really interested should just google or bing "end the fed"
And a 80% accurate account of "Banking,fractional and banking with compound interest"
watch YOUTUBE, "THE AMERICAN DREAM FILM"

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Do you now see that the Bank actually made a copy of the real money STILL in the initial depositors account which under normal circumstances would just sit there.

Deposits sitting in bank vaults and doing nothing but gathering dust isn't a "normal circumstance"

"There's the rub" Why are we allowing private banks to "print" money,lend it out charging interest and keeping all the profit.
THEY WILL TELL YOU, "OMG , either we must let them fail, or we will have to give them up to $235 Trillion (that's the amount quoted by The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency states that US institution have in deviratives)
****I am going to sign off this site ,I do not believe it is time effective.
Anyone out there that is really interested should just google or bing "end the fed"
And a 80% accurate account of "Banking,fractional and banking with compound interest"
watch YOUTUBE, "THE AMERICAN DREAM FILM"

Funny how the only place to get truth is youtube.

The bank does not make extra money for itself by lending money, moron. Here's the balance sheet of Bank 1 after the loan out 90% of Mr. A's deposit of $10,000 to Mr. B.

ASSETS
$9,000 owed by Mr. B
$1,000 in cash in vaule

LIABILITIES
$10,000 owed to Mr. A

$9,000+$1,000 - $10,000 = 0 - the bank has profited nothing,. The only way they can profit is by charging interest. If there is no profit then NO ONE WILL DO IT MORON.

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you now see that the Bank actually made a copy of the real money STILL in the initial depositors account which under normal circumstances would just sit there.

Deposits sitting in bank vaults and doing nothing but gathering dust isn't a "normal circumstance"

"There's the rub" Why are we allowing private banks to "print" money,lend it out charging interest and keeping all the profit.
THEY WILL TELL YOU, "OMG , either we must let them fail, or we will have to give them up to $235 Trillion (that's the amount quoted by The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency states that US institution have in deviratives)
****I am going to sign off this site ,I do not believe it is time effective.
Anyone out there that is really interested should just google or bing "end the fed"
And a 80% accurate account of "Banking,fractional and banking with compound interest"
watch YOUTUBE, "THE AMERICAN DREAM FILM"

Funny how the only place to get truth is youtube.

The bank does not make extra money for itself by lending money, moron. Here's the balance sheet of Bank 1 after the loan out 90% of Mr. A's deposit of $10,000 to Mr. B.

ASSETS
$9,000 owed by Mr. B
$1,000 in cash in vaule

LIABILITIES
$10,000 owed to Mr. A

$9,000+$1,000 - $10,000 = 0 - the bank has profited nothing,. The only way they can profit is by charging interest. If there is no profit then NO ONE WILL DO IT MORON.

I think that you missed his point though. He is basically saying that the bank is loaning MORE than the initial deposit. In effect, loaning money out that does not exist.

 

[trickydickyUK]

Ron Paulites - please explain - how do we end the fed?

In particular, what happens to the Fed's assets and liabilities?

The congress have the power to end the Federal Reserve; the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is unconstitutional. You repeal the Act and abolish the board of members. You can then liquidate the Feds assets and force a return of monies to the treasury. Any outstanding liabilities are abolished with the exception of programs open to employees such as retirement and other benefits.

If you want to understand the Federal Reserve System read "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." Author G.Edward Griffin.

Why would the US government want to borrow money at "interest" from a Private Federal Reserve system of banking cartels that prints money from thin air.
May I suggest that you research "Fiat Currency" and "Fractional Reserve Banking."

The US has the power to issue bonds, so why not it not issue it's own money at no debt to the people?

Essentially your "income tax" goes to pay the interest on the money borrowed to the US Congress from the Fed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ron Paulites - please explain - how do we end the fed?

In particular, what happens to the Fed's assets and liabilities?

The congress have the power to end the Federal Reserve; the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is unconstitutional. You repeal the Act and abolish the board of members. You can then liquidate the Feds assets and force a return of monies to the treasury. Any outstanding liabilities are abolished with the exception of programs open to employees such as retirement and other benefits.

If you want to understand the Federal Reserve System read "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." Author G.Edward Griffin.

Why would the US government want to borrow money at "interest" from a Private Federal Reserve system of banking cartels that prints money from thin air.
May I suggest that you research "Fiat Currency" and "Fractional Reserve Banking."

The US has the power to issue bonds, so why not it not issue it's own money at no debt to the people?

Essentially your "income tax" goes to pay the interest on the money borrowed to the US Congress from the Fed.

Post of the Day!

Why should we borrow our money from a private bank and owe it back with interest?

If we made our own money we would not have to pay it back and there would be no interest.

 

[American Horse]

Ron Paulites - please explain - how do we end the fed?

In particular, what happens to the Fed's assets and liabilities?

The congress have the power to end the Federal Reserve; the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is unconstitutional. You repeal the Act and abolish the board of members. You can then liquidate the Feds assets and force a return of monies to the treasury. Any outstanding liabilities are abolished with the exception of programs open to employees such as retirement and other benefits.

If you want to understand the Federal Reserve System read "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." Author G.Edward Griffin.

Why would the US government want to borrow money at "interest" from a Private Federal Reserve system of banking cartels that prints money from thin air.
May I suggest that you research "Fiat Currency" and "Fractional Reserve Banking."

The US has the power to issue bonds, so why not it not issue it's own money at no debt to the people?

Essentially your "income tax" goes to pay the interest on the money borrowed to the US Congress from the Fed.

Post of the Day!

Why should we borrow our money from a private bank and owe it back with interest?

If we made our own money we would not have to pay it back and there would be no interest.

It's the only system we have for forcing some discipline on our congress and president. During the formative years of our country's expansion we depended on foreign and domestic wealth owned by private entities to supply the capital to finance the things that needed to be done. It's their money, our government through the treasury provides the standard medium of exchange; the dollar.

I've read the book "Creature/Jekyll Island" and that is no help at all; it’s for those who have a preconception of the Fed as represented by Griffin. The monetary creation of new dollars shrinks the value of all the dollars owned by the fed/banks and everyone else who owns them in the same way as when a corporation issues new stock, the total value remains the same, but the value of each share of stock shrinks. Dollars are the rolling stock of the people who own the wealth.

Introducing new money into the system is a tool to distribute capital into areas and sectors that are judged to need it to optimize the financial system as a whole, and to stabilize employment in the jobs sector. Viewed in that light it makes perfect sense for the treasury to pay interest to the Fed in the scenario you describe.

The real problem we have is that IMO the fed is being politically railroaded into an untenable situation to keep interest rates low, because we need to attract money from other countries, to presumably stimulate business borrowing, and to enable the treasury to borrow at low rates because we can't really afford the level of debt that we have and will have if we don't change fiscal policy, and if interest rates were normalized.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The congress have the power to end the Federal Reserve; the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is unconstitutional. You repeal the Act and abolish the board of members. You can then liquidate the Feds assets and force a return of monies to the treasury. Any outstanding liabilities are abolished with the exception of programs open to employees such as retirement and other benefits.

If you want to understand the Federal Reserve System read "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." Author G.Edward Griffin.

Why would the US government want to borrow money at "interest" from a Private Federal Reserve system of banking cartels that prints money from thin air.
May I suggest that you research "Fiat Currency" and "Fractional Reserve Banking."

The US has the power to issue bonds, so why not it not issue it's own money at no debt to the people?

Essentially your "income tax" goes to pay the interest on the money borrowed to the US Congress from the Fed.

Post of the Day!

Why should we borrow our money from a private bank and owe it back with interest?

If we made our own money we would not have to pay it back and there would be no interest.

It's the only system we have for forcing some discipline on our congress and president. During the formative years of our country's expansion we depended on foreign and domestic wealth owned by private entities to supply the capital to finance the things that needed to be done. It's their money, our government through the treasury provides the standard medium of exchange; the dollar.

I've read the book "Creature/Jekyll Island" and that is no help at all; it’s for those who have a preconception of the Fed as represented by Griffin. The monetary creation of new dollars shrinks the value of all the dollars owned by the fed/banks and everyone else who owns them in the same way as when a corporation issues new stock, the total value remains the same, but the value of each share of stock shrinks. Dollars are the rolling stock of the people who own the wealth.

Introducing new money into the system is a tool to distribute capital into areas and sectors that are judged to need it to optimize the financial system as a whole, and to stabilize employment in the jobs sector. Viewed in that light it makes perfect sense for the treasury to pay interest to the Fed in the scenario you describe.

The real problem we have is that IMO the fed is being politically railroaded into an untenable situation to keep interest rates low, because we need to attract money from other countries, to presumably stimulate business borrowing, and to enable the treasury to borrow at low rates because we can't really afford the level of debt that we have and will have if we don't change fiscal policy, and if interest rates were normalized.

That is what we have been told.

I am not buying it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

They haven't stolen anything from us. In fact they send billions to the Treasury every year.

And we owe it back to them with interest.

No we don't. The Fed returns the interest it receives from Treasury obligations to the Treasury.

You are ignorant as ****.

The Fed lent out 7.77 TRILLION in loans and has received back 78 Billion last year.

7.77 Trillion divided by 78 Billion equals:

99 Years to pay back all the loans.

And in the meantime, the Fed will loan out more.

Show me any bank that will let me pay back a loan in a 99 year term.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The real problem we have is that IMO the fed is being politically railroaded into an untenable situation to keep interest rates low, because we need to attract money from other countries, to presumably stimulate business borrowing, and to enable the treasury to borrow at low rates because we can't really afford the level of debt that we have and will have if we don't change fiscal policy, and if interest rates were normalized.

When Ben Bernanke was selected as Fed Chairman it was because he had already said that if he were the Chairman he'd push rates low and keep them there.

It's all planed.

The Fed is an independent agency with the veneer of accountability from the gov't.

Number of audits completed on the Fed since 1913? One.

Can you say that about ANY OTHER gov't agency? No.

You claim to have read "Creature..." yet you don't understand how the fractional reserve banking system works. You need to do a little study on Derivatives too.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I would assume they get subsumed to Treasury.
The bigger question is who takes over the functions of the Fed? In a Ron Paul world we go back to the 18th century when everyone issued bank notes and figuring out which were sound and which were bogus was an industry. While the Fed has been far from perfect, it is better than the system it replaced. And those opposed to it eventually reveal themselves as cranks and anti-semites.

Ron Paul has never said that but that doesn't stop you from insisting he did. Typical, know nothing, Rick Perry supporter (His name isn't Rick by the way).
And being anti-Federal Reserve is equated with Anti-Semitism? Explain.

It's like arguing that Obamacare was not going to increase costs because the CBO said so.
This is simply the logical extension of what is being proposed.
If you think the anti-Fed movement is not filled with anti-semites then you haven't been paying attention.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNgxxUbwVVY]The Jew World Order is sinking the American economy. - YouTube[/ame]

Seems like Americans who are pro America first, are considered anti semites. It's especially stupid to suggest that, considering most Jews aren't even considered semites, since the majority can't trace their bloodlines to the peoples of that part of the world.
The anti semite card is always thrown out to ridicule those that would like to put America first, and tired of catering to Israels and their supporters.
Ending the Fed would be a pro American people, pro constitution, move, not an anti semite thing. If the banking world is made up of people who are of the Jewish faith, tough shit.
If it was dominated by Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists would you then say the end the fed movement was anti- those faiths, or peoples?
I doubt it.
We're talking monetary policy, and the way the constitution says it should be handled, religious beliefs should be kept in the churches synagogues, or mosques.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The congress have the power to end the Federal Reserve; the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is unconstitutional. You repeal the Act and abolish the board of members. You can then liquidate the Feds assets and force a return of monies to the treasury. Any outstanding liabilities are abolished with the exception of programs open to employees such as retirement and other benefits.

If you want to understand the Federal Reserve System read "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." Author G.Edward Griffin.

Why would the US government want to borrow money at "interest" from a Private Federal Reserve system of banking cartels that prints money from thin air.
May I suggest that you research "Fiat Currency" and "Fractional Reserve Banking."

The US has the power to issue bonds, so why not it not issue it's own money at no debt to the people?

Essentially your "income tax" goes to pay the interest on the money borrowed to the US Congress from the Fed.

Post of the Day!

Why should we borrow our money from a private bank and owe it back with interest?

If we made our own money we would not have to pay it back and there would be no interest.

It's the only system we have for forcing some discipline on our congress and president. During the formative years of our country's expansion we depended on foreign and domestic wealth owned by private entities to supply the capital to finance the things that needed to be done. It's their money, our government through the treasury provides the standard medium of exchange; the dollar.

I've read the book "Creature/Jekyll Island" and that is no help at all; it’s for those who have a preconception of the Fed as represented by Griffin. The monetary creation of new dollars shrinks the value of all the dollars owned by the fed/banks and everyone else who owns them in the same way as when a corporation issues new stock, the total value remains the same, but the value of each share of stock shrinks. Dollars are the rolling stock of the people who own the wealth.

Introducing new money into the system is a tool to distribute capital into areas and sectors that are judged to need it to optimize the financial system as a whole, and to stabilize employment in the jobs sector. Viewed in that light it makes perfect sense for the treasury to pay interest to the Fed in the scenario you describe.

The real problem we have is that IMO the fed is being politically railroaded into an untenable situation to keep interest rates low, because we need to attract money from other countries, to presumably stimulate business borrowing, and to enable the treasury to borrow at low rates because we can't really afford the level of debt that we have and will have if we don't change fiscal policy, and if interest rates were normalized.

"It's the only system we have for forcing some discipline on our congress and president. "

If Americans would invest time into understanding what is really going on, the majority would be outraged, and truly force the discipline on congress and the president that is needed. As it is , they don't have Americans best interests in mind. They have sold us out for of greed, and power. America is for sale to the highest bidder, and congress and the president are the auctioneers.

 

[American Horse]

The real problem we have is that IMO the fed is being politically railroaded into an untenable situation to keep interest rates low, because we need to attract money from other countries, to presumably stimulate business borrowing, and to enable the treasury to borrow at low rates because we can't really afford the level of debt that we have and will have if we don't change fiscal policy, and if interest rates were normalized.

When Ben Bernanke was selected as Fed Chairman it was because he had already said that if he were the Chairman he'd push rates low and keep them there.

It's all planed.

The Fed is an independent agency with the veneer of accountability from the gov't.

Number of audits completed on the Fed since 1913? One.

Can you say that about ANY OTHER gov't agency? No.

You claim to have read "Creature..." yet you don't understand how the fractional reserve banking system works. You need to do a little study on Derivatives too.

I think that I do understand it, and the way I see it without a system of fractional reserves there wouldn't be enough money in the banking system to support a major economy like ours. And IMO "derivatives" are fine as long as there is no interference by the gov to force the creation of a bubble which undermines the value of the derivitives, influences rating agencies and appraisors, and risks the true valuation of those derivatives.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The real problem we have is that IMO the fed is being politically railroaded into an untenable situation to keep interest rates low, because we need to attract money from other countries, to presumably stimulate business borrowing, and to enable the treasury to borrow at low rates because we can't really afford the level of debt that we have and will have if we don't change fiscal policy, and if interest rates were normalized.

When Ben Bernanke was selected as Fed Chairman it was because he had already said that if he were the Chairman he'd push rates low and keep them there.

It's all planed.

The Fed is an independent agency with the veneer of accountability from the gov't.

Number of audits completed on the Fed since 1913? One.

Can you say that about ANY OTHER gov't agency? No.

You claim to have read "Creature..." yet you don't understand how the fractional reserve banking system works. You need to do a little study on Derivatives too.

I think that I do understand it, and the way I see it without a system of fractional reserves there wouldn't be enough money in the banking system to support a major economy like ours. And IMO "derivatives" are fine as long as there is no interference by the gov to force the creation of a bubble which undermines the value of the derivitives, and the risk or valuation of those derivatives.

Bubbles are created by the Fed by pumping in a lot of cheap money. This creates mass malinvestments that crash.

 

[American Horse]

When Ben Bernanke was selected as Fed Chairman it was because he had already said that if he were the Chairman he'd push rates low and keep them there.

It's all planed.

The Fed is an independent agency with the veneer of accountability from the gov't.

Number of audits completed on the Fed since 1913? One.

Can you say that about ANY OTHER gov't agency? No.

You claim to have read "Creature..." yet you don't understand how the fractional reserve banking system works. You need to do a little study on Derivatives too.

I think that I do understand it, and the way I see it without a system of fractional reserves there wouldn't be enough money in the banking system to support a major economy like ours. And IMO "derivatives" are fine as long as there is no interference by the gov to force the creation of a bubble which undermines the value of the derivitives, and the risk or valuation of those derivatives.

Bubbles are created by the Fed by pumping in a lot of cheap money. This creates mass malinvestments that crash.

Yes, when the fed acts as a willing agent of the president.
So consider a president like Obama and the congress he had until 2010.

I'd trust bankers to defend the dollar before I'd trust our elected politicians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I think that I do understand it, and the way I see it without a system of fractional reserves there wouldn't be enough money in the banking system to support a major economy like ours. And IMO "derivatives" are fine as long as there is no interference by the gov to force the creation of a bubble which undermines the value of the derivitives, and the risk or valuation of those derivatives.

Bubbles are created by the Fed by pumping in a lot of cheap money. This creates mass malinvestments that crash.

Yes, when the fed acts as a willing agent of the president.
So consider a president like Obama and the congress he had until 2010.

I'd trust bankers to defend the dollar before I'd trust our elected politicians.

That's not the point.

 

[trickydickyUK]

I think that I do understand it, and the way I see it without a system of fractional reserves there wouldn't be enough money in the banking system to support a major economy like ours. And IMO "derivatives" are fine as long as there is no interference by the gov to force the creation of a bubble which undermines the value of the derivitives, and the risk or valuation of those derivatives.

Bubbles are created by the Fed by pumping in a lot of cheap money. This creates mass malinvestments that crash.

Yes, when the fed acts as a willing agent of the president.
So consider a president like Obama and the congress he had until 2010.

I'd trust bankers to defend the dollar before I'd trust our elected politicians.

You would really trust a banker? They are they route of all problems in the World. You Have the higher class then you have the banking class. The people who think you should be their slaves. Maybe you should watch the: Money Masters or Wake up Call on the net. Do not trust a banker or a politician (with the exception of Ron Paul).

 

[American Horse]

Bubbles are created by the Fed by pumping in a lot of cheap money. This creates mass malinvestments that crash.

Yes, when the fed acts as a willing agent of the president.
So consider a president like Obama and the congress he had until 2010.

I'd trust bankers to defend the dollar before I'd trust our elected politicians.

You would really trust a banker? They are they route of all problems in the World. You Have the higher class then you have the banking class. The people who think you should be their slaves. Maybe you should watch the: Money Masters or Wake up Call on the net. Do not trust a banker or a politician (with the exception of Ron Paul).

There you go: "Only Ron Paul can save us"
I watch that stuff all the time, as well as all the Alex Jones videos, and I don't find it convincing.
And I'll watch your two too.

 

[trickydickyUK]

Yes, when the fed acts as a willing agent of the president.
So consider a president like Obama and the congress he had until 2010.

I'd trust bankers to defend the dollar before I'd trust our elected politicians.

You would really trust a banker? They are they route of all problems in the World. You Have the higher class then you have the banking class. The people who think you should be their slaves. Maybe you should watch the: Money Masters or Wake up Call on the net. Do not trust a banker or a politician (with the exception of Ron Paul).

There you go: "Only Ron Paul can save us"
I watch that stuff all the time, as well as all the Alex Jones videos, and I don't find it convincing.
And I'll watch your two too.

No, Ron Paul would only be a facilitator, The american people can only save themselves. Do not get me wrong I am not trying to force you to think my way. I am just trying to raise the issues that are coming to the fore front at the moment.

 

[Google]

Ron Paulites - please explain - how do we end the fed?

In particular, what happens to the Fed's assets and liabilities?

All assets and liabilities attained by the Federal Reserve were gained through the manipulation of currency and rightfully belong the American people.

This was demonstrated very well during the last debt ceiling debate. Ron Paul argued that around $1,000,000,000,000 of US debt, treasury bonds, were owned by the Federal Reserve and could simply be wiped out. The quantitative easing programs allowed a private entity, the FED, to simply create money and purchase US T-bills that the American people would pay interest on.

This isn't a complex question, it is laid out very clearly in the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the government concerning its' role in monetary policy.

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

Your question is condescending. The Treasury Dept has the Constitutional authority to take over all the duties and obligations of the FED.