Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich to End the Fed

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 24, 2012, 3:12 p.m. EST by wiseoldowl (86)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are two candidates who want to End the Fed.

Check out Newt's victory speech from South Carolina starting at 7:58


Newt agrees with Ron Paul on Fiat money, ending the Fed...

Is there something we don't know about that so many conservatives who are in bed with bankers all want to end the Fed? Is it because it is the last regulating body that is standing in the way of the banks doing whatever and however they want?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by nikko (62) 2 years ago

Ron Paul has created his views based on a selective and often imaginary view of the past. He also leaves out certain very important rules of how economies work. The gold standard failed because it cannot work in a modern dynamic economy. If money is fixed to a finite resource, deflation must occur. And it did. With deflation, everything stops. People and businesses cannot buy because wages and prices will constantly go down, meaning that they will not be able to pay off any purchases. Deflation is far worse than inflation. Also, with a gold standard and no federal reserve, a small minority of banks will have all the gold and therefore the money. They will charge sky high interest rates and make everyone else there slaves. This did happen and this is what the populist movement was about. If you think this was good, you need to read about what farmers and working people had to say about this oppression in the 1890's and before.

A big problem with the bailouts is the matter wasn't explained. The problem is we had to replace the money lost by the Wall Street banks because it exceeded what they had. Thanks to deregulation (like ending Glass Stegall and the massive increase of leveraging limits, and many others..) banks could bet way too much of other peoples money. Also, when derivatives came around, the Ron Paul types (against regulation) argued against Brooksly Borns (CFTC chairperson in 1999) advice that they needed regulation or would blow up in our faces. We could have nationalized the banks instead as a temporary measure (which happened in the past) but the banks would whine and the spin doctors would cry "socialism!" If we did not replace the money in some way, the dollar would collapse and interest rates could easily jumped to 30 or 40 % or more, and unemployment would have skyrocketed.

Otherwise, Ron Paul's libertarian views are not new. Before the great depression we were much closer to that and things were horrible for everyone but the few in the upper crust. Before the progressive era in the early 1900's things were even worse. Since 1980, beginning with Reagan, we began undoing all the 1930's reforms; labor laws and union support, decimating the financial regulations and the agencies put in place to prevent a repeat disaster, and we went from progressive taxation to regressive taxation. It boggles my mind why anyone would think that Ron Paul is an anecdote to disparity - in fact his views have been the cause of it.

Another thing many people think is that having a gold standard makes money more solid. In the past when countries were on the gold standard, when economies got in to trouble, they simply changed the currency - gold conversion rate to print more money. Countries engaged in competitive devaluations. Those fearing govt intervention should understand that this method of intervention is actually far greater than what we now have which requires some matter of growth to trigger an increase in money supply. Many of would say - no we'll just make laws against that. Yes, but if you are in charge and unemployment is 25 % and people are hungry and rioting in the streets, laws will change quickly to allow that.

[-] 2 points by VoTeR (2) 2 years ago

The Federal Reserve is a third party organization and NOT a government body. As mandated to avoid too much power in one the banks. The fed should be ended. its an unconstitutional authority run by the banks and most don't even realize its headquarters is in porto Rico.... google it.

[-] 1 points by thevoiceofthepeople (1) 2 years ago

Gingrich is a liar, when he was speaker of the House, he never touched the issue. Ron Paul literally wrote the book on it: "End The Fed"

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 2 years ago

Hi Wiseoldowl,

The Fed empowers the wall st. banks. Without the Fed's constant help (quantitative easing), most of the big Wall St. banks would go bankrupt and fail outright. The Fed keeps them on life support, and the bankers well-compensated.

Paul's push to end the fed, institute sound money, and 'liquidate the malinvestments' would destroy Wall St. as we know it. Most, almost no, politicians say this except for Paul, Sanders, Kucinich and recently Alan Grayson.

This is a fairly new view from Gingrich. I'm surprised he is saying it and have no idea why.


[-] 2 points by wiseoldowl (86) 2 years ago

Look up Glass-Steagall and you will understand why the Fed had to help Wall Street. Because people like Ron Paul were intrumental in removing Glass-Steagall, many economists had predicted the disaster(look up Noriel Roubini) as a consequence. Banks went into the derivitives business, resulting in the subprime mortgage crises. The Fed bailed out the banks as part of their charter to exist.

Now I think the bail out was completely wrong and that instead an investigation should have taken place. I also believe an inestigation still needs to be taking place the the Fed needs to explain itself. But what happened was the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And the guy (Ron Paul) who was intrumental in getting rid of Glass Steagall along with his Republican cronies is now trying to get rid of the Fed by putting the entire blame on the crises on the Fed. Rather disingenuous!

[-] 3 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 2 years ago

Hi wiseoldowl,

Dr. Paul voted against the repeal of Glass Steagall.

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ron+paul+vote+on+glass+steagall&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"> google link</a>

Even long before the crisis, the Fed introduces new money into the system by giving/lending it to the dozen or so Wall St. financial institutions and they take a cut.

Now if you are a social justice type, and even a fan of Keynes and fiat currencies and central banks and inflationary money supplies, I would think it would be more fair to distribute new money by sending it to everyone or maybe the poor.

If there is a sinister reason for Paul wanting to end the fed, it is at the expense of the banks, not their benefit.


[-] -1 points by wiseoldowl (86) 2 years ago

Ron Paul voted against the first version of the repeal as it had too many requirements for disolving the boundry between commercial and investment banks. When the second and final version of the bill, the one that eliminated everything, he didn't bother to vote on it. He was okay for it to pass by his Republican buddies and took the day off.

Now flash forward to 2008 and the financial crises. After seeing the outcome, being the poitician he is, Ron Paul suddenly claims he voted against the Glass Steagall repeal all along. Really he only voted against the original, more regulated form of the bill.

The Ron Paul sites and Ron Paul minions have inundated the internet that it is hard to get the real story about Ron Paul. A great example is how he claims that he is supported by most of the military. This is also a stretch of the truth. Here is the real math:


Almost impossible to bring the facts out in this environment. We keep hearing the same slogans over and over again everyday and nobody has time to fact check and it is far easier to only see what you want to see and read what you want to read. But the facts are there behind the screen of Ron Paul noise.

[-] 2 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 2 years ago

Hi Wiseoldowl,

Do you feel that some of the progressive politicians have the same sinister intentions with their desire to audit and end the Fed? Specifically, vocal progressives Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, and Socialist Bernie Sanders.

Your opinion of Paul is clear enough, I'm more interested in your advocacy for the Fed and its support of Wall St.


[-] 2 points by wiseoldowl (86) 2 years ago

There are no sinister intentions. I'm most familiar with the positions of Bernie Sanders and there are many who agree that the way the Fed has acted since the removal of Glass-Steagall has not been completely transparent. Now we can stretch this and say that the idea of a central bank, fiat money, and not having money tied to the gold standard is the root of all the problems but that is not what many economists and critics of the Fed have been saying.

The Fed is in the position of ensuring a stable economy and to that end they made some back room deals with the offending banks. This is what needs to be inviestigated. The source of the problem was Glass-Steagall and de-regulation which allowed banks to take deposits and gamble them in the exchange markets.

Many of the real culpits were actually in the government. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others who worked for Goldman Sachs and pushing for deregualtions also demanded the bailouts claiming that the world economy would fall. The banks were bailed out without any restrictions. Therefore they could still forclose on home mortgages on the lending side while being covered for their investing side.

I don't support Bernanke's cooperation with Paulson. I believe strongly that the Fed needs to be investigated and that Wall Street needs to be made accounted.

But that does not justify going back to a Gold standard, getting rid of Central Banking, and a host of other non sequiturs pastiched together to create some kind of boogie man complete with an alternate histroy and conspiracy stories to affect sheep like action.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Dumbowl the reason he voted against the first and not the second...The first is the house bill he was a congressman, the second was the Senate bill he was not a senator. It is o.k tho you just need to learn how congress works

[-] 0 points by wiseoldowl (86) 2 years ago

Talk about stupidity! You must be the dumbest lowlife on the planet! Why don't you look at the final roll call for yourself!


The stupidity of you guys is overwhelming! You should bury yourself in a pile of shit cause you have a pointless life. You live for another human being like a dog. This doublethink reminds me of history books that describe the adulation of Adolph Hitler. You will lie, steal, harrass and perhaps even kill for you leader Ron Paul. Please buy as much gold for yourself as you possibly can, I beg you! I want you to be part of what Soros and others have called the biggest bubble in economic history. Idiot!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20415) 2 years ago

I think Gingrich is far more to the right than he lets on. And, "Ending the Fed" talk is just sexy talk for these politicians. Most Americans don't understand it, but they like the tough talk.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Newt will not end the fed and the FED is not a regulatory agency, it is a private bank.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States.

The Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates--in the Federal Reserve Act. The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate. Its duties have expanded over the years and today, according to official Federal Reserve documentation, include conducting the nation's monetary policy, supervising and regulating banking institutions, maintaining the stability of the financial system and providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.

The Federal Reserve System's structure is composed of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors (or Federal Reserve Board), the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation, numerous privately owned U.S. member banks and various advisory councils.

A more accurate and appropriate name for you would be BannedForStupidity.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Their is no over site to the federal reserve. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/19304/2_4_Trillion___Bernanke_Won_t_Tell/

THE WORLD CENTRAL BANK (1948 - Present) In Washington, the headquarters of both the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) face each other on the same street. What are these organisations, and who controls them?

To find out we need to look back to just after WWI. At this point the money changers were attempting to consolidate the central banks under the guise of peacemaking. To stop future wars they put forward the formation of a world central bank named the Bank of International Settlements, a world court called the World Court in the Hague, and a world executive for legislation called the League of Nations.

In his 1966 book entitled Tragedy and Hope, president Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley writes about this.

"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.

The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank... Sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world." Carroll Quigley, Professor, Georgetown University

They got 2 out of 3. The league of nations failed largely owing to the suspicions of the people and while opposition concentrated on this, the other two proposals snuck their way through.

It would take another war to wear the public resistance down. Wall street invested heavily to rebuild Germany, as the Chase bank had propped up the Russian revolution.

Now the Chase merged with the Warburg's Manhattan Bank to form the Chase Manhattan which would later merge with the Chemical Bank to become the largest bank on Wall Street.

In 1944 the US approved its full participation in the IMF and the World Bank. By 1945 the second League of Nations was approved under the new name 'The United Nations'. The war had dissolved all opposition. The methods used in the National Banking Act of 1864 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were now simply used on a Global scale.

The Federal Reserve Act allowing the creation of Federal Reserve notes is mirrored by the IMF's authority to produce money called Special Drawing Rights (SDR's). It is estimated the IMF has produced $30 billion dollars worth of SDR's so far. In the United States SDR's are already accepted as legal money, and all other member nations are being pressured to follow suit. With SDR's being partially backed by gold, a world gold standard is sneaking its way in through the back door, which comes with no objection from the money changers who now hold two-thirds of the worlds gold and can use this to structure the worlds economy to their further advantage.

We have gone from the goldsmith's fraud being reproduced on a national scale through the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, to a Global level with the IMF and the World Bank. Unless we together stop giving these exchange units their power by our collective faith in them, the future will probably see the Intergalactic Bank and the Federation of Planets Reserve set up in much the same way.

This radical transfer of power has taken place with absolutely no mandate from the people.

Nations borrow Special Drawing Right from the International Monetary Fund in order to pay interest on their mounting debts. With these SDR's produced at no cost, the IMF charges more interest. This contrary to bold claims does not alleviate poverty or further any development. It just creates a steady flow of wealth from borrowing nations to the money changers who now control the IMF and the World Bank.

The permanent debt of Third World Countries is constantly being increased to provide temporary relief from the poverty being caused by previous borrowing.

These repayments already exceed the amount of new loans. By 1992 Africa's debt had reached $290 billion dollars, which is two and a half times greater than it was in 1980. A noble attempt to repay it has caused increased infant mortality and unemployment, plus deteriorating schools, and general health and welfare problems.

As world resources continue to be sucked into this insatiable black hole of greed, if allowed to continue the entire world will face a simular fate.

As one prominent Brazilian politician, Luis Ignacio Silva,ðput it.

"Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started - a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies . . . It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam . ."1

If a group or organisation had used its hard earned money to help these developing nations, then we might sympathise that there should be a real effort to repay these loans. But the money used was created from fractional reserve banking. The money loaned to the Third World came from the 90% the banks allow themselves to loan on the 10% they actually held. It didn't exist, it was created from nothing, and now people are suffering and dying in an effort to pay it back.

[-] 1 points by wiseoldowl (86) 2 years ago

The Federal reserve is a regulating body:


It is an independent private body from the government to prevent political corruption. Though there are governemtn central banks that are very succesful and supposedly beyond corruption:


Part of the reason Ron Paul is against the Central Bank is because his whole thesis starts with Lincoln being a traitor to the United States constitution. At that time Lincoln had to finance the Civil War against the south. There was no central regulating bank that could regulate interest rates so banks were giving a high interest rate of 38%. They claimed it was the market rate.That would have basically bankrupt the Union. So Lincoln passed the National Banking Act of 1863 so that the government can produce it's own currency to pay for the war with government regualted interest rates. These were called greenbacks. It took power away from the banks because it was a reserve based on the net worth of the Union and not on the gold that was owned by the banks.

The net worth of the US GDP is much much much higher than the amount of US Dollar money that actually circulates. That is why it is called fractional reserve, and that is why the US Dollar is the most solid currency in the world. Right now, all currency uses the Dollar as a measure of that currency's woth. Take away the dollar and the entire world collapses.

Take that dollar and, instead of basing it on a diversified portfolio (GDP) and base it on a single commodity like Gold and then all the pwere of the entire world will be in the hands of the person who owns the most Gold. Doesn't sound so great to me, does it sound okay to you?

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 2 years ago

Hi Wiseoldowl,

Even if you favor a central bank fiat currency over commodity money. I agree with you that taking the dollar out would really shake up the world economy. It would also be very destructive towards our banking system which largely are the Wall St. institutions.