Posted on 08/03/2011 1:18:07 PM PDT by ex-Texan
Rep. Ron Paul on Monday introduced legislation that would lower the federal government's debt by canceling the roughly $1.6 trillion in debt held by the Federal Reserve.
Paul has argued for the last few weeks that the idea represents a quick way to make the growing fiscal crisis more manageable. Under his bill, H.R. 2768, the $1.6 trillion that the Treasury owes to the Federal Reserve would disappear.
The Federal Reserve began buying Treasury bonds in earnest late last year as part of its effort to keep long-term interest rates down. But Paul has argued that Fed purchases of Treasury debt represent a debt that the government owes to itself, and one that also leads to an unwanted and inflationary increase in the money supply.
Paul has also said the Fed is allowing the federal government to continue a spending binge it otherwise would not be able to afford, and is forcing the Fed to print money to keep up.
"If the federal government cannot cut spending and bring the budget back into balance, the Fed undoubtedly will be forced to simply monetize trillions of dollars in Treasury debt, which is nothing more than a stealth form of default," Paul said back in May.
Paul is highly critical of the debt-ceiling agreement that the House approved Monday, and said that rather than require real cuts in spending, the bill mostly cuts planned spending levels in the future. According to the legislation, discretionary spending in 2012 would be just $7 billion less than in 2011, and in 2013 it would be just $3 billion less than 2011 before allowing increases above 2011 levels.
"No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it," Paul wrote in a piece that appeared on The Hill's Congress Blog. "Instead, the 'cuts' being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases."
Paul is highly critical of the debt-ceiling agreement that the House approved Monday, and said that rather than require real cuts in spending, the bill mostly cuts planned spending levels in the future. According to the legislation, discretionary spending in 2012 would be just $7 billion less than in 2011, and in 2013 it would be just $3 billion less than 2011 before allowing increases above 2011 levels."No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it," Paul wrote in a piece that appeared on The Hill's Congress Blog. "Instead, the 'cuts' being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases."
How about the $9 Trillion that the Fed can’t account for?
Isn’t that esentially debt we owe to ourselves?
It doesn’t make whole lot of sense to keep paying it.
That would balance the budget for this year but what about next year?
Meanwhile, CNN is running, as we speak, with a banner Headline Stating:
Debt Deal could force $700B in cuts over 10 years” , like it is DRASTIC, HORRIBLE NEWS...
We live on Orwell Bizarro Planet now, don’t we.
It would be better to just delete the Federals Reserve...................
When I was a kid I worked on Ron Paul’s early campaign. I remember driving him over to an event one time. At a skating rink of all places:) He was saying the exact same things then as he is today. He really has never changed his tune(s).
Such a vast transaction probably violates multiple conflicts of interest regulations and may, in fact, constitute illegal money laundering.
Does anybody even know how many box cars of $ 100 bills it would take to move that much currency or how much all the bill would weigh ___ ?
Thank God the Fed is using imaginary numbers and computer transactions and one and zeros of digital money . . . LOL !
It represents money that we printed. Getting rid of it just clears the way to print more.
ML/NJ
Well, yes, but when you specify the definitions of we and ourselves in context it becomes more clear.
we owe = wage slave tax payers OWE
to ourselves = to the banking cabal that rules the money supply
The corrected version reads, "Isn't that essentially debt we tax payers owe to our banking cabal overlords?"
We wouldn't have to pay interest on a loan that the Federal Reserve essentially bought back.
As far as the 1.6 trillion 'disappearing', all the principal is just numbers on a piece of paper. It is the INTEREST which involves REAL MONEY, and which somebody MUST PAY.
Ron Paul is correct. We are paying for something that we should not be.
Where do you think all these Superyachts and World's Tallest Buildings come from?
-——But Paul has argued that Fed purchases of Treasury debt represent a debt that the government owes to itself,-——
Which raises the question, if the Treasury ceased making interest payments would the fed sue?
When the "tune" is reality, what's to change?
"Whoopie . . . Free imaginary $ Trillions . . . All owed by the taxpayers . . ."
AFAIK, the $16T was paid back.
If I loan out $1 a hundred times, and it’s paid back in short order every time, I’ve loaned out $100 - and it’s no big deal. Seems that’s what the Fed is doing, just on a larger scale (repeated loans, all paid back).
This could be an elegant stealth method to get rid of the Fed. I like it
The Federal Reserve (a non-government organization) can account for every penny. They do no have to give an 'accounting' to us, or the government, as they are the bankers, the loan originator.
It is our government that says they can't account for the money, and blames the Federal Reserve. There is even talk of 'auditing' the Federal Reserve. What a joke. There is about as much chance of that as you getting to sit in on all of the Obama meetings at the White House and Golf Course.
The Federal Reserve Corporation is a private bank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.