How Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's Campaign Could End the Fed

Email

Led by presidential candidate Ron Paul's "end the Fed" mantra, Republicans have made their attacks on the U.S. Federal Reserve into an election year rallying cry.

It's one that could turn ugly in November if the GOP manages to score big.

Where Paul has been the lone voice in the wilderness criticizing the central bank for years, others in the GOP recently adopted the Fed as a scapegoat for the financial crisis of 2008.

Many of the Republican attacks include calls to fire Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and to scale back the Fed's mandate – or in Paul's case, eradicate it altogether.

And while Paul – who actually wrote a book called "End the Fed" in 2008 – has little chance of becoming the nominee, his campaign does have a larger philosophical objective.

"It is Paul's goal to permanently establish within the Republican Party a group that is dead set on not having the Fed," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief economic adviser to Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, during his 2008 run for the presidency,told MarketWatch. "This is not going away."

Ron Paul Scores Big With Younger Voters

Although Paul's overall support generally hovers in the low double digits, his message is very popular among younger Republican voters.

Paul won 48% of the under-30 vote in Iowa, 47% of the under-30 vote in New Hampshire and 31% in South Carolina. It's a demographic every candidate covets.

Paul's resonance with young voters, combined with the public's dim view of the Fed has set off an all-out GOP assault on the central bank.

For added juice, Republicans in general have sought to tie their criticisms of the Fed to U.S. President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

"If you are a [Republican] running for Congress – those freshmen in the House – they thought that Bernanke was walking around talking about buying assets for Obama to make it easier for him to spend," Holtz-Eakin told MarketWatch. "It lit the fuse."

Following Ron Paul's Lead

Gingrich, whose presidential campaign has been on an upswing of late, has come the closest to Paul's radical positions. The former Speaker of the House has said he would eliminate the unemployment mandate of the Federal Reserve, forcing it to focus on inflation alone.

Gingrich also has vowed to seek Bernanke's resignation if elected president.

Meanwhile, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has now moved from qualified support for Bernanke and the Fed early in the campaign to a more negative position. He would seek Bernanke's removal, as well.

"I'd be looking for somebody new," Romney said in one of the many debates. "I think Bernanke has over-inflated the amount of currency he's created. QE2 did not work."

Only Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, has avoided discussing the Fed, although he has said that it should have its mandate reduced to include only inflation.

Most of the Republican candidates who have dropped out also took shots at the Fed, with Texas Governor Rick Perry going so far as to label Bernanke "treasonous" for his easy money policies.

With such vitriol increasingly becoming part of mainstream GOP thinking, a Republican in the White House – and possibly control of both houses of Congress – could set the stage for more than just fiery anti-Fed talk.

Can They Really End the Fed?

Regardless how eager Republicans are to make changes at the Federal Reserve, they're sure to find it's not as easy to pull off as they'd like their campaign audiences to believe.

Just last fall, GOP congressional leaders sent a letter to the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to dissuade them from following through on a plan, known as "Operation Twist," to sell short-term Treasuries while buying longer-term Treasuries.

The FOMC ignored the letter and voted to approve the measure.

In fact, Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 to be an apolitical, independent central bank. The seven members of the Board of Governors, which comprise the majority of the policy-making FOMC, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but getting rid of them is not so easy.

Fed governors (including the chairman) serve 14-year terms that expire in January of even-numbered years. According to law they "may not be removed from office for their policy views," which could complicate GOP plans to remove Bernanke.

President Richard Nixon discovered just that in late 1968 when he sought to replace Chairman William McChesney Martin Jr. with Arthur Burns. President Nixon offered Martin the position of Secretary of the Treasury to open up the Fed chairmanship to Burns.

But Martin, seeing through the ruse, turned down the offer and served out his term. President Nixon was forced to wait until Martin's term expired in 1970 to appoint Burns to the post.

Chinks in the Fed's Armor

Of course, that doesn't mean Republicans are entirely without options. They could conceivably pass legislation changing the Fed's mandate if they control both Congress and the White House.

Although it's unclear how the markets would react, Wall Street would probably balk at such a fundamental change to the body that sets the nation's monetary policy.

However, Paul proved two years ago that the Fed is not invulnerable when he successfully added a provision to the Dodd-Frank law that allowed for an audit of the central bank.

And as long as Paul's "end the Fed" message is gaining traction among rank-and-file Republicans – especially the younger set -attacks on the Fed are unlikely to stop.

"In the minds of the public, the Fed was the great enabler of this huge catastrophe that we've had since the panic of 2008," Steve Hanke, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told Slate magazine. "And I think the general consensus is that they remain the source of a lot of the problems we're facing right now as well."

News and Related Story Links:

Join the conversation. Click here to jump to comments…

  1. Daniel | January 27, 2012

    Let's hope we can succeed in ending the Fed in a swift and orderly fashion. It's great to now see articles at least discussing the possibility.

  2. ManinNH | January 27, 2012

    "And while Paul – who actually wrote a book called "End the Fed" in 2008 – has little chance of becoming the nominee, his campaign does have a larger philosophical objective." Are you sure? You have some kind of telepathy stating these as facts? I would beg to differ on the part about little chance to become the nominee. FYI, we the people vote and with historically low voter turnout and then looking at the energy and enthusiasm in the Ron Paul Camp, are you still sure? I believe you will eat your words…

    No Kings, No Wars.

    No one but Dr. Paul

    Ron Paul 2012
    Restore America Now!!!

  3. Eric | January 27, 2012

    To this article's notion that "its not that easy", Ron Paul has also introduced the idea of competing currency, and a system backed by commodities/gold/silver. Congress wouldn't need the (obviously deeply embedded, not so apolitical) fed's permission to do its job and make something like this happen. Abe Lincoln did this with the congressionally created greenback because he didn't want to borrow at 30% interest to fight the civil war. Look what he got, a bullet in the head from Fed henchman. Same thing for JFK, he was outspoken against the fed and wanted to move to sound currency. Andrew Jackson, who now ironically adorns the $20 bill, thought he did end the Fed even after multiple attempts on his life by their henchman, so much so that his epitaph reads "I killed the bank". Too bad the Fed always weasels their way back in with contrived market crashes as well as induced depressions and recessions. Control the money supply, you control the people.

    So the idea to "End the Fed" is certainly dangerous, for anyone who is actually willing to follow through with it. Don't be fooled by Gingrich's say-anything-to get-elected campaign strategy (a moon colony for Floridians… case in point), the only GOP candidate who will take steps towards creating competing currency, backed by commodities, which cannot be inflated by a printing press that endlessly prints our currently useless currency, is of course…

    RON PAUL

    I won't regret my vote in the years to come… will you?

    • John | January 27, 2012

      @ Eric

      Please send me the links to your articles. If you aren't writing articles on this subject you need to. Your two paragraphs were more logical and composed than 90% of the "journalism" out there on this subject.

      • Eric | January 27, 2012

        Oh I rip my material off from plenty of already well-written articles and well-produced documentaries about the Fed. Plus there's that common-sense logic that has been infused into the mind, heart and soul of many Ron Paul supporters.

        I kind of wish I left the assassination stuff out of it, because I see several comments down referencing "conspiracy theories" which I know is directed at me, and Ron Paul doesn't support those theories, doesn't talk about them, and wouldn't. Would hate the mainstream media to grab a hold of a "Paulite's" words and project them onto Dr. Paul. So I will put it this way, if you take a look at all the brave men in power who took steps towards ending the fed, it coincidentally shortened their lives.

        If they are calling the "contrived market crashes" bit a conspiracy theory, JP Morgan & other financial elites intentionally caused the great depression to buy up much of corporate America the time, while at the same time presenting the Federal Reserve yet again as the solution to financial instability. That is well documented. Don't believe me? Look it up. Woodrow Wilson was their puppet in office, and he voiced his regret for re-establishing the fed on his death bed.

        The fed IS the source of financial instability. Ron Paul calls it the inflation tax. The Fed prints money, your dollar becomes worth less for every dollar they push into the system. That's theft, no matter how you slice it.

        A lot of people, particularly wall street bankers, and the reporters who work for them will make money seem more complicated than that. Well it is, because of the system we have in place. A commodity-based monetary system (The Gold Standard), as re-proposed by Ron Paul, was what the founders of this country intended when they wrote the constitution. Its simple, your money is worth something, and it cannot be manipulated.

        For people who seem to have an obsession with power, money that can't be manipulated out of your wallet and into their hands simply will not do. Someone pointed out that the Fed's contract is up in 2013.

        I can GUARANTEE without a shred of doubt, that if Ron Paul is not president in 2013, the Fed will get a new contract, which means another 100 years (who knows? maybe more) to toy with our spending power, crippling us as a people.

        VOTE RON PAUL 2012!

    • Sailor Jo | February 20, 2012

      Interesting history.

      A central bank may be useful. Trouble is that the fed is a private/public institution. It should be owned by the country and still be independent. Who else would do the job protecting the currency? Politicians, including Ron Paul, are not able to do that.

    • Maria | April 12, 2012

      I just watched a video yesterday about Ron Paul's solutions for ending the Fed (competing currency). He is brilliant. Ending the Fed is actually pretty easy…not as complicated as journalists, bankers, and politicians would like to make people think. If you read the Rothchilds history (especially 1600-1700), a lot of early banking was based on mysticm and scams. I'm embarrassed that we actually use this archaic system today. It's a war for profit machine. What a joke!

  4. ManinNH | January 27, 2012

    Also, "In fact, Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 to be an apolitical, independent central bank. The seven members of the Board of Governors, which comprise the majority of the policy-making FOMC, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but getting rid of them is not so easy."

    The contract that approves the Federal Reserve as America's Central Bank expires in 2013, as it is a 100 year contract. Guess what happens when the Contract expires?

    How do Journalists get paid to not be informed or inform the public on subjects that they try to make themselves look like they are educated on. What a shame.

    • Charles H | January 27, 2012

      Oh, a hundred year contract for the Fed. that's why Mitt is being PUSHED to Win by the BIG MONEY.

    • Michael | January 27, 2012

      The Fed is a perpetual institution "until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law". Check US Code, Title 12, Section 341. There is no expiry in 2013. There was originally a 20-year clause in the Federal Reserve Act. The Act was amended to perpetual in 1927.

      The only way to "End the Fed" is by an act of Congress.

      • Robert Stone | January 29, 2012

        yes, or to arrest them for all the crimes that they have done secretly and through others by manipulation.

  5. ManinNH | January 27, 2012

    One last thing while I am here.

    I find most uneducated Journalistic responses concerning Dr. Paul to be quite pathetic in substance and fact. However I feel the need to inform these Journalists who decide to print such misinformation that they are treading on Liable waters. If we, the general public, can find and understand the Policies of Dr. Paul by just doing a bit of personal research, why can’t the authors who subscribe to the hit piece with slanderous comments?

    Since 1960, the media seems to think they can publish ANYTHING they want without rebuttal or Liability because of the Supreme Court Decision concerning New York Times vs. Sullivan. In those days however, there was no Internet and the three big newspapers were all that was readily available for any information.

    I however, believe I smell Litigation concerning Actual Malice coming down the pipe to eliminate this corrupt, irresponsible Main Stream Media for their bias reporting and neglect of their responsibility to the general public according to the Oath that Journalists are required to take to be Journalists and the publishers are going to need an army of attorneys to prevent this from happening.

    No Kings, No Wars.

    No one but Dr. Paul ty

    Ron Paul 2012
    Restore America Now!!!

  6. hwt123 | January 27, 2012

    The Fed is not the only rallying cry that Ron Paul supporters are demanding and that is the restoration of our civil liberties that both parties support.
    Obama ,Newt ,Romney and Santorum all support the patriot act , NDAA and Nazi Germany tactics that the military industrial complex and special interest groups and lobbyist all support the perpetuation of wars for profit…Both parties and all the media is corrupt.
    This is all due to the secret bankers of the Federal Reserve and the ease of printing our wealth away to fund the scam the secret bankers set up in 1913.

  7. Chris | January 27, 2012

    If it wasn't for Ron Paul America would even know what the Fed does. Ron has been talking about the Federal Reserve since 1970! He is also the only one that wants to follow the Constitution. He wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air. Ron Paul predicted the DotCom bubble and the Housing Bubble / Bust in 2001. Way before these other idiots even had a clue about monetary policy.
    If you want to save America start learning. YouTube Ron Paul and check out Thomas Woods while you are at it.

  8. Zipp | January 27, 2012

    Ron Paul DOES have a chance of winning the nomination – he's easily the most conservative candidate out there. Gingrich and Romney are so much the same such that they have to nitpick each other for valid criticism, while Ron Paul has a record that's completely untouchable to them.

    • Sailor Jo | February 20, 2012

      It does not matter how conservative he is. He has to be trusted to win the elections. So far I find all the right wing nuts to be just that – nuts. I do not want to go back to 1950. When is the US going to become a modern country?

  9. Jeremy | January 27, 2012

    I came to the comments expecting the usual batch of threats, absurd conspiracy theories, and blind saviorism from Ron Paul's fans and I was not disappointed!

  10. Ben | January 27, 2012

    This article is off base on a number of points

    1) Let's review the definition of scapegoat from dictionary.com

    "a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place."

    The Fed's loose money policy and corruption are very much responsible for the housing crisis, inflation, etc. So to blame them FOR THE EFFECTS OF THEIR OWN POLICY is not making them a scapegoat at all.

    2) The Fed is by essence unconstitutional, so getting rid of the Fed may be as simple as making the Supreme Court rule on its constitutionality.

    3) Dr. Paul's plan to introduce competing currencies may be the best way of getting rid of the Fed and does not require any permission from the Fed to do. The Fed is a cartel and cartels hate competition.

    4) This line gave me a chuckle:

    "Although it's unclear how the markets would react, Wall Street would probably balk at such a fundamental change to the body that sets the nation's monetary policy."

    Who gives a flying eff what Wall Street would balk at? They've been destroying our country and our currency for years. They don't deserve deference to their wishes at this point.

  11. Wayne | January 27, 2012

    Instead of tearing down every system we have in the United States, why don't we try to improve or revise them so they work as they were meant to work. The Republicans want to do away with Social Security and Medicare. Ron Paul wants to do away with the Fed. Perry wanted to do away with the Depts. of Education, Commerce, and Energy. Congress wants to scrap Obamacare without even seeing if it works. Let's try to make them work for the people before we scrap them.

    The greatest improvement we can do for the American economy is to make Congress work for us. Congress is broken and we need to fix it. AND WE CAN!!! Congress no longer works US, it works for THEM. Why else would candidates spend so much money to get themselves elected? Congress is a MONEY MAKING MACHINE for an elected official. Congressional officeholders don't have to play by the rules we do. They make their own rules. They get inside information on when and what stocks to buy or sell. They get it from the legislation that they vote on. Sometimes the stocks they own might even influence how they vote on certain bills or cause them to change certain provisions in a bill to their advantage. They can even "earmark" funding in a bill to go to certain projects that affect real estate or stocks they own. They even tack projects into other bills that affect their financial situation. Is this right or ethical? No, but is legal as the ethics committee sees it and as the laws governing them now are written. Of course, THEY wrote those laws. Congressmen don't have to take graft from lobbies and big business to get rich, they just have to vote in THEIR interests.

    We can take back our Congress and make it work for US. I recommend everyone read a book by Peter Schweizer called "Throw Them All Out" and also another book called "Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made The Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. Real eyeopeners!

    To take back OUR Congress we need to resolve that we will vote for NO incumbent congressman when he comes for election. This will get rid of the "PERMANENT POLITICAL CLASS" type of congressman that now REIGNS in Congress. This will send the message that WE want a Congress that is answerable to the "people" and it is no longer "business as usual" in the halls of Congress. We need to let ALL our elected officials know that we want reform in the laws that govern their conduct, that we want them to abide to the laws that we must, that they are not a "special" class of people, and that they are not "entitled" to special pensions, health care, exemptions by laws, or special perks. They are OUR employees and they need to KNOW it. It will probably take 2 or 3 election cycles to get this message across and eliminate the "PERMANENT POLITICAL CLASS" but if we can determine to do this we can take back OUR Congress and make government work for US.

    As we take back Congress we need to let our Congressmen know that we want election reform that will take "big business" out of election financing. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with big business but there is way too much money spent on campaign financing and it causes too much influence in Congress. Of course some of that will be eliminated as a new breed of Congressman is elected with the knowledge that we (the voters) will not stand for him or her to become part of the "PERMANENT POLITICAL CLASS". Big business will not spend the millions of dollars to finance the campaigns of Congressmen that will vote for the broader good of the people over the narrower interests of certain big business or PACs financing their campaigns. So that money will dry up and may go back into the economy. We can reclaim our Congress and bring back honesty and integrity to our government if we dedicate ourselves to eliminating the politicians who have gotten the idea that Congress is their "ticket to riches" instead of a public trust.

    • Andrew | January 28, 2012

      Wayne,

      Your plan sounds great; but, I believe it is pure panacea. We have been told for the last hundred years that all we have to do is fix the system. The system does not need to be fixed . . . it needs to be eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Departments of Energy, Education and Commerce are all failures. Moreover, they are unconstitutional failures. I don't believe we should go on trying to make work what cannot work . . . I have been told that this is the definition of insanity.

      Ron Paul 2012!

      • Wayne | January 28, 2012

        Andrew, I don't care who is President in 2012. And maybe we do need to tear apart every part of government and start over again. But think of the chaos that would insue if we did away with all departments of government. Even Europe would tremble as the Chinese or the Islamic world took over our nation.

        No, there is a better way!!! We have to change the way that Congress views the electorate. In case you forgot, that is US (the voter). Congress has no respect for the voter because we are so easily swayed by the slogans and campaign retoric paid for by their PACs that we vote for them over and over again with no regard for their record. Hell, even they believe it sometimes. But the fact is that very few Congressmen seek election to represent the interests of the middle class American. And fewer yet seek reelection for any other reason than to increase their own riches once they find what a "moneymaking machine" Congressional office is. So the only way we have of ever taking back our government is to show them that we will vote them out of office if they don't represent us fairly and at least reasonably honestly.

        You say my plan won't work Andrew, but 240 years ago the British said the colonies wouldn't revolt, and if they did they wouldn't last long against the might of the British army. Well, they did, and we did. Now we have another chance to get our government back, a chance to do it nonviolently at the ballot box. We have been giving our freedom away to the powerful forces of the banks, Wall Street, and big business by letting our government be bought and condoning the corruption of Congress, and it is time for us to demand our rights as citizens and vote them ALL out as they come up for reelection. No more PERMANENT POLITICAL CLASS.

  12. jrj90620 | January 27, 2012

    It will take the collapse of the Dollar and hyperinflation to wake up Americans to demand an end to the Fed.Then all these fools will wish they had heeded Ron Paul,who has more wisdom than they do.

  13. joe | January 27, 2012

    ""And while Paul ……..has little chance of becoming the nominee,"

    It must be a mandate that comes down 'from above' that this statement must always be used, in every publication. I've NEVER seen it said for Santorum, who has less a chance than everyone, since he is not even on the ballots of states totaling 500+ number of delegates. Dr. Paul is on all 50 state ballots. Maybe journalists will lose their jobs if they don't insert the mandated phrase. We may yet find out, but not till after the election. Jobs are too scarce nowadays for whistleblowing.

  14. Eric | January 27, 2012

    Tried to post this reply before and it didn't go through (just in case a mysterious double-post happens, you'll know why)…

    @John

    Thanks John. Nope I don't write articles. I rip my material off from plenty of already well-written articles and well-produced documentaries about the Fed. Plus there's that common-sense logic that has been infused into the mind, heart and soul of many Ron Paul supporters.

    I kind of wish I left the assassination stuff out of it, because I see several comments down one person referencing "conspiracy theories" which I know is directed at me. Ron Paul doesn't support those theories, doesn't talk about them, and wouldn't. Would hate the mainstream media to grab a hold of a "Paulite's" words and project them onto Dr. Paul. So I will simply put it this way, if you take a look at all the brave men in power who took steps towards ending the fed, they coincidentally had shorter lives than those who didn't.

    If they are calling the "contrived market crashes" bit a conspiracy theory, JP Morgan & other financial elites intentionally caused the great depression to buy up much of corporate America the time for pennies on the dollar, while at the same time presenting the Federal Reserve yet again as the solution to financial instability. That is well documented. Don't believe me? Look it up. Woodrow Wilson was their puppet in office, and he voiced his regret for re-establishing the fed on his death bed.

    Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, the fed IS the source of financial instability. Ron Paul calls it the inflation tax. The Fed prints money, your dollar becomes worth less for every dollar they push into the system. You lose your purchasing power the same as if someone snatched a $20 from your wallet. That's theft, no matter how you slice it.

    A lot of people, particularly wall street financial institutions, and the reporters who work for them will try to make money seem more complicated than any mere mortal can understand. Well it is over complicated, and it's because of the system we have in place. The most hilarious thing I have heard lately, is that the interest rates supposedly determine the value of the dollar, and not how much money is pumped into the system. That makes no sense.

    But their is a solution to this monetary insanity. A commodity-based monetary system (The Gold Standard), as re-proposed by Ron Paul, was what the founders of this country intended when they wrote the constitution. Its simple, your money is worth something, and it cannot be manipulated.

    For people who seem to have an obsession with power, money that can't be manipulated out of your wallet and into their hands simply will not do. Someone pointed out that the Fed's contract is up in 2013. I can GUARANTEE without a shred of doubt, that if Ron Paul is not president in 2013, the Fed will get a new contract, which means another 100 years (who knows? maybe more, maybe a trillion just to be symbolic) to toy with our spending power, crippling us as a people.

    VOTE RON PAUL 2012!

  15. Robert Stone | January 29, 2012

    Not all on fire supporters of Ron Paul and his message are young or republicans. Like me, in 60's , and one who abhors politics, find myself supporting and pushing Ron Paul and his message just as hard as any. It s not the man. Obviously he has his flaws as all do; but he believes and lives his message, and it is one that resonates strong with those young in heart; who hate these ridiculous wars and control of the presidency by the big bankers.
    I do not believe there will be an America left standing unless radical action is taken.
    The whole idea of war with Iran is so ridiculous, but the media and the whitehouse have everyone whipped up into another war fever, just like with Iraq and Libya.
    When will Americans wake up and see they are being duped. If I was in the military, I d seriously consider what am I fighting for, dying for. Is it truly for freedom, America, country, or is it to continue an agenda for world control. Are those people in the middle east that we are destroying really our enemies, or are they enemies because we are attacking them and destroying their countries, families, economies.
    Have we ever tried a new approach. Let Ron Paul have the chance. We have done the war thing for many years, many presidents and nothing has changed except deep debt; a lot of people hating us, let alone losing God's blessing, protection because of our actions.

  16. Jack Mac | January 30, 2012

    All of the foregoing comments are interesting but miss the basic reason for it all. Ignoring and/or violating the Constitution for the United States of America — the rule book for the national government — is the basis for most, if not all, of these problems. Many, if not most, of the laws we have today do just that.

    One solution is, to paraphrase Shakespeare is: "Kill all the bad politicians", but that's illegal. Another one is: RON PAUL 2012

  17. ron goddard | February 19, 2012

    Wow,,everything points to Fed., that enigmatic source of debauchery and chicanery instigated by Rothschild and his cronies in 1913..holding a gun at the head of in form pres woodrow Wilson. You see dear old woodrow was empowered by the zionist cartel then blackmailed by letters he sent to an infamous lady who sold them to the cartel for US$40,000. Dear pres. had no option but to enforce his position in relation to the creation of the Fed. through congress. Along comes JFK and puts a bill through congress in June 1963 returning the Fed to the people and printing new notes in the process. The notes were different to the zionist run Feds notes..in one respect. Of course the zionists were pretty upset by JFK and his actions..so they moved, sorry removed hom from office in November 1963. I guess any body else who tries to do that again better not drive in downtown Dallas. Oh, by the way, that bill has NEVER been rescinded…well guys what the heck are you waiting for! Go get 'em.

  18. ron goddard | February 19, 2012

    Oh..just for the record the JFK notes had the words of currency printed in red, as distinct from the green numbers of zionist Feds. notes. Also to this day the Rothschilds hold 57% ownership of the Fed. and their shares are NOT for sale. Dear Fed. the pariah of all that is good and holy in this America of our dreams and aspirations. I am an aussie from way back and I hate to see Uncle Sam go down.

  19. NorskeDiv | April 29, 2012

    Ron Paul supporters are outspoken, I'll give them that.

    Here's my prediction if Ron Paul actually managed to become president – he could not end the federal reserve, it couldn't even be done in one term, if he tried, the economic wreckage would be such that he would never be re-elected. Instead, Republicans would manage to get direct control over interest rates, and if they really followed through with the idea that the printing of new money is theft, they would logically raise the federal rate to 100% nightly, thereby ending any monetary expansion. The economy would then be constrained by velocity of capital as it was when we were on the gold standard. As China and other countries amass more and more dollars, the currency left for trade within the United States would shrink and our economy would gradually be crippled.

    The only lasting effect of a Ron Paul presidency would likely be direct political control of the federal reserve, a la Venezuela, and eventually someone like Hugo Chavez would use that control to temporarily pump up the economy while destroying the currency. This is what is lost on Ron Paul supporters – the independence of the federal reserve is a FEATURE, to PREVENT this kind of populism, IT IS NOT A DEFECT.

    Think about it, would you really want Obama having direct control of the federal reserve – or a Democratic congress for that matter??

    Perhaps also a Ron Paul presidency would make alternative currencies legal tender, based on the history of "private" currencies with no regulatory oversight, these would mostly probably be scams of a various sort, with insufficient backing – essentially a pyramid scheme.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


eight − 7 =

Some HTML is OK