Economists: End Or Drastically Downsize the Fed

George Washington's picture

Economics Professor and monetary expert Randall Wray told me thatwe should end the regional Federal Reserve banks, as they have such terrible conflicts of interest, strip out all regulatory power from the Fed (since it doesn’t believe ine regulation, anyway), and implement monetary policy with a very small staff. He is not opposed to moving operations over to Treasury and/or the FDIC.

Professor of economics Steve Keen told me that he would pretty much limit the Fed to being a clearing house between different banks. In other words, in his view, the Fed could be stripped of all of it’s regulatory, monetary and emergency bailout powers.

Economics professor Michael Hudson told me:

Before 1913 all the Fed’s operations were conducted quite well by the Treasury. (David McKinley’s book for the 1907 described this quite well a century ago.) the Fed’s aim was to Decentralize policy. The way things turned out, Wall Street leaders were given veto power. The role of Tim Geithner — in giving billions away in cash-for-trash trades the DAY before he was designed new Treasury Secretary (from his NY Fed position) tells it all.

But would the Treasury be different? The key is to put it back in the public interest, not Wall Street. Easier said than done.




[Congressman Dennis Kucinich's bill to nationalize the Fed, and his call on protesters to demand nationalization of the Fed] drastic, but it is the only way to check the fact that commercial banks create debt money recklessly, and now “casino capitalism” gambles that are bound to fail.


If we could implement the 100% reserve proposal and administer it correctly, I’m all for it. The government would NOT create credit for gambling, or ensure it.

PhD Economist Marc Faber said that protesters should Occupy the Federal Reserve.

Famed economist Milton Friedman wanted to end the Fed:

This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System… and that the severity of each of the major contractions — 1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities…


Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank…


To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers.

Austrian-school economists such as Murray Rothbard want to abolish the Fed:

Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.

I noted Tuesday:

The New York Sun reported that a … Nobel economist may have implied that the Fed should be abolished:

Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who “said that what he called a ‘natural’ competitive banking system without a ‘central’ bank would be better…. ‘nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.’”

Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz strongly dislikes the Fed:


Joseph Stiglitz – former head economist at the World Bank and a nobel-prize winner – said yesterday that the very structure of the Federal Reserve system is so fraught with conflicts that it is “corrupt” and undermines democracy.

Stiglitz said:


If we [i.e. the World Bank] had seen a governance structure that corresponds to our Federal Reserve system, we would have been yelling and screaming and saying that country does not deserve any assistance, this is a corrupt governing structure.


Stiglitz pointed out that – if another country had presented a plan to reform its financial system, and included a regulatory regime that copied the makeup of the Federal Reserve system – “it would have been a big signal that something is wrong.”


Stiglitz stressed that the Fed banks have clear conflicts of interest, since the banks are largely governed by a board of directors that includes officers of the very banks they’re supposed to be overseeing:


So, these are the guys who appointed the guy who bailed them out … Is that a conflict of interest?


They would say, ‘no conflict of interest, we were just doing our job. But you have to look at the conflicts of interest”…


The reason you talk about governance is because in a democracy you want people to have confidence … This is a structure that will undermine confidence in a democracy.

Indeed, as I noted Sunday:

Given that the 12 Federal Reserve banks are private – see this, this, this and this- the giant banks have a huge amount of influence on what the Fed does. Indeed, the money-center banks in New York control the New York Fed, the most powerful Fed bank. Indeed, Jamie Dimon – the head of JP Morgan Chase – is a Director of the New York Fed.

Former Fed officials agree. For example, the former Vice President of Dallas Federal Reserve said that the failure of the government to provide more information about the bailout signals corruption. As ABC writes:


Gerald O’Driscoll, a former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said he worried that the failure of the government to provide more information about its rescue spending could signal corruption.


“Nontransparency in government programs is always associated with corruption in other countries, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be here,” he said.

In fact, many high-level economists have blasted the Fed for bungling virtually everything it does.

And while – admittedly – many mainstream Keynesian economists may be hesitant to question the Fed’s existence because the Fed is a big part of the printing press on which Keynesianism relies (and the Fed has essentially bought the economics profession), the same arguments which Keynesians have made against the “too big to fail” banks apply to the Fed as well.

For example, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman wants the big banks to be broken up because their very size warps the political system:


My view is that I’d love to see those financial giants broken up, if only for political reasons: it’s bad to have banks so big they can often write laws.

Former chief IMF economist Simon Johnson says much the same thing.

The Federal Reserve is an enormously powerful institution, which doles out tens of trillions of dollars – many to foreign banks and governments (and see this and this) – without democratic input of any nature whatsoever. While Fed apologists say that the bank’s “independence” must be preserved, the fact that the Fed has sent trillions overseas shows the Fed is somewhat independent of American interests.

And the fact that the Fed funneled trillions to the biggest banks – instead of main street or public works projects – runs counter to the wishes of most people and of Keynes’ actual prescriptions. (Keynesians speak of “saltwater” and “freshwater” schools of thought, depending on whether economists think money can be pumped anywhere and it will stimulate the economy, or it should be pumped in specific places. But the Fed hasn’t done either, but has instead given huge sums to the big banks, and then encouraged them to park the money). See this and this.

Liberal Keynesians should oppose such a gigantic concentration of power – shielded from accountability to the people – on basic principles.

Indeed, both liberals and conservatives should despise something which runs so counter to the “separation of powers” envisioned in the Constitution.

Note: The American people want the Fed ended or at least reined in as well. See this, this and this.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
flow5's picture

A lot of crap as well as lies.

Lazane's picture

 you cannot bag the beast by aiming at it's flanks, you need to pierce the head, and most talk today on bagging the FED centers around flanks and no head. where's the head? anybody know?, who is really the FED Honcho here anyway,  it looks like hunters walking in circles hunting the same sign.

g speed's picture

End the Fed--mute point as they now have their own enforcers-- a thousand gun fighters standing strong, sholder to sholder, to prevent any and all attacks against the Fed-- thank you congress and DOJ for putting the last nail in the coffin--- this almost guarantees a civil war.  The cry must now be Kill the Fed.

Fix It Again Timmy's picture

We are systemically being lied to 24X7x365.  We SHOULD be very tired of this.  For starters we need immediate election reform and the dismantling of K Street.  OK, so i can dream...

proLiberty's picture

Money printing is theft of private wealth by dilution.  The Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by financial instituions but that operates in collusion with government.  By creating money out of thin air, it gives government the means to continue spending money apart from the willingness and ability of the citizens to fund the government through taxation.  Government then appears to itself to be self-sustaining and therefore it becomes self-serving apart from the citizen.  In the process, it sells the citizen into servitude to pay the interest on the debt government creates.  This is not sustainable.  There is NO good exit strategy for the citizen.  The sooner we stop the Fed's money-printing, the better we all will be.


swamp's picture

Excuse me, ahh, the argument is to "downsize" or to "eliminate" an organized criminal cabal/organization? 


AR15AU's picture

Schiff calls out the latest crop of pathetic Nobel prize winning schmucks...

Libertarian777's picture

Only problem with the entire premise of this article is to say ''end the fed and return the power to the treasury". So instead of centralizing monetary power with the fed reserve, you want the treasury which also conducts fiscal policy as well. Sounds like a money masters / Ellen brown argument.

Legalising competing currencies is the real solution.

Republicae's picture

The only purpose for the Treasury is that is should simply be just that, a Treasury, nothing more. The GreenbackerWacks, like Brown and Still and Montagne are all completely in the dark when it comes to what they are actually saying, or perhaps they are aware and want to continue allowing this government to reform one dangerous type of fiat currency for yet another more dangerous fiat currency.

my puppy for prez's picture

You ARE right about competing currencies.  That would go a long way!  But the Constitution gives the power to coin money to CONGRESS, so we have to keep this in mind, as well.  

honestann's picture

End the federal reserve.
End the federal government.
That's a good start, but just a start.

Republicae's picture

Though I was never a big fan of Justice John Marshall, he stated:"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will."

Now, accordingly, Justice Marshall gave some hints as how to limit the government. Any limitation on government must start with and conclude with a limitation on spending, thus it is logical to conclude that there must also be a limitation on taxation, as well as the other threat, its power to issue fiat money. If spending cannot be limited, neither can the reach of government.Therefore, if we are to seek to limit government our efforts must be through the denial of taxation and the elimination of its power to issue fiat money substitutes.

The problem, of course, is the People, it will only work when and if, the People understand certain principles and through that understanding, stand upon those principles. Government must therefore, be limited by very proscribed prohibitions on its ability to both issue fiat currency and tax the People. Though I no longer have much faith in the ballot box, I do have some faith left in public opinion and the power of that opinion to sway and even move government in certain directions.

There was, in Marshall's time, an axiom that basically stated the power to tax is the power to destory, what therefore was the axiom referring? Politicians never seem to ask the question just what is destoryed by both taxation and the issuance of fiat currency, yet it is one of the more important questions that can be asked. What is destoryed through taxation and fiat monetary inflation?

I dare say a very great deal and more than that, there are those things that are not event attempted because of taxation and the power to issue an increasingly impotent fiat currency into circulation. What services and production would have been made available had these two forms of government intervention not taken place, what has been destroyed because of such interventions? In terms of wealth and savings, just how much through the years has been diverted through an intentional policy of inflationary depreciation of the fiat currency regime? How much vital capital investment has been either diverted due to such interventions of government or simply not considered worth the risk? What resources, both physical and mental have either been restrained, or diverted because of the uncertainty of government actions, either through taxation policies, fiat inflation or regulation? 

There must come a time when the People, if they care about their lives and the future of this country, begin to actualy hold not only the elected officials accountable, but also they must demand the accountability of the massive bureacracy that has metastasized into a cancer that must drain away the life-blood of this country just to exist?

We must increasingly call for real limitations on this government and if not redressed, then perhaps we must focus on our individual State governments to impress upon our State Legislatures that it is their duty to seek to stand between this rogue federal government and the People, nullifing the acts of Congress, limiting once again the actions of the federal government to only those things that are specifically delegated to it by the Constitution and nothing, nothing more! If nullification does not work, then perhaps once again we may read the headlines: UNION DISSOLVED!


swamp's picture

The "FED" as in "Federal Reserve" is private. It is NOT government.

Republicae's picture

Incorrect, while the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks are indeed quasi-private, meaning large commercial banks, S&Ls, nationally chartered banks (banks which all are required by Congressional law to be members and own stock) and some state chartered banks own stock in them, private individuals cannot own stock and the Federal Reserve Central Banking system itself is a government agency, with government appointees, government payroll and government benefits. The Board of Governors are  all government appointees. The vast majority of proceeds from the sale and interest on government bonds are relinquished by the Federal Reserve and reverts to the Treasury.

It is important to understand the workings of the so-called private portion of the FED, they too were established by the Federal Reserve Act and are under the oversight of Congress, their actions are not independent from that oversight, but their actions are not directly accountable either due to the nature of the Federal Reserve Act itself. Now, as far as just how the corporate structure of the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks operates, they are similar to a private corporation in that their organization is based on such a structure and stock in them is held by private commercial banks however, that is where the similarity ends. All Federal Reserve Stock, that is stock issued from the 12 Regional FEDs can never be sold by the member banks, it can’t be traded, the dividends are static at 6% annum and the stock-holding banks have no voting rights within the Regional Federal Reserve Banks as an actual private corporation would allow. Indeed, the by-laws are completely a government construction and laid out by Congressional decree, not by a private decree.

Actually, the Regional Federal Reserve Banks don’t operate or function like a private corporation at all, nor are the member bank stockholders allowed to change the by-laws of the Regional Federal Reserve Banks. They are however, quasi-private to the extent that those member banks own a set amount of shares, but that is it. Thus, the structure, completely unlike a privately held corporation has three levels of organization that is lead by the Federal Reserve Bank Board of Governors a completely government controlled and paid portion of the system, then the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks, which are also under the direct oversight of Congress and then the member banks to those Regional Banks, which are stockholders with no corporate voting rights, no power to change by-laws and a dividend that is set by Congressional Act.  Doesn’t sound very private to me, it doesn’t operate or function as a private corporation.

Now, the member banks are members because, by Congressional law, all nationally chartered banks must join and it is optional, but any state chartered bank may, by application also join under  the clause found in12 USCA 282. Now, by joining the Federal Reserve Bank, a member becomes a stockholder, but it is a set amount of stock, there are no majority holders and the dividends are set and remember the stockholders have no voting rights as to the direction of the Regional Banks. Thus, if your claim that the Federal Reserve is privately owned, that is true only to the extent that there are private banks who hold stock, but that is the extent of it, from that point there is no more resemblance to a private corporation. With no voting rights, those member banks have very little power to direct the way the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks are run, but the member banks can vote for 6 out of the 9 directors of their respective Regional Federal Reserve Banks. Those directors, in turn, have control over the operations of those Regional Banks, but only to the extent that they operate under the guidelines and the oversight of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which has the sole power over all monetary policy, the directors in the 12 Regional Banks have no power over monetary policy.

So, is it private? It has attributes of a private corporation, but is far less of a private corporation than say FannieMae or FreddieMac, which are GSOs with far greater independence than the Federal Reserve Bank or the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks. If private ownership is one where the government makes you own something, make you be a member and own stock, then that is a very strange type of private corporation, don't you agree? 

The problem is that there are influences from both the political and commercial side of the equation that controls decision making with the Federal Reserve, it is neither dependent nor completely independent of those influences, as such, there is a propensity for the FED to act in ways that are not necessarily in the interest of the people of the United States, more than it acts in the interest of politics and the patronage system our government has created through corporatism. It is better to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, dissolve the complete Central Banking system and only allow Congress the power to coin gold and silver and regulate, in the strict sense, the value thereof. 




buyingsterling's picture

I'm not sure this is relevant, or even correct in its essence.

" it doesn’t operate or function as a private corporation." - That is the essence of your argument. Please explain who will prevent Mr. Bernanke from doing whatever he sees fit to do? He can be removed, but are our politicians really keeping tabs on him? He did loan $16 trillion to banks without informing Congress. He can create a larger amount of money than we owe to the entire world and 'loan' it to his friends.

Precisely how it functions and is set up are not entirely relevant, given what it can do. And in the end it's just an enabling mechanism for the system of fiat money. It doesn't really 'do' anything to make a huge pile of money day to day for its members, it merely insures they get to enjoy the bankers' benefits of the fiat system.

Republicae's picture

As I said, the FED is the lapdog of the government, it keeps the government in a fiat liquidity, without it the government would not exist in its present form therefore, it and Bernanke operate at the benefit and the behest of the federal government and for government interest primarily. The problem is a dual one between the actions of the Federal Reserve and those of government; the government reaps the main benefits of the issuance of fiat currency, the other beneficiaries are the member banks and then those who have access to the fiat pig trough first, that being, under the patronage system, those favored and powerful corporations.

It’s function and its operations are extremely relevant because, the political inclinations of the FED mean that there is a weakness, if it were solely a privately held corporation there would be little that the public could do to sway politicians to act against the FED, but as it is there is a growing concern among Congress about the actions of the FED. That is a definite weakness that can and must be exploited if this country is to ever regain its government and restore the Republic.

It does not simply issue huge piles of money day to day for its members, on the contrary, while the member banks do enjoy reserve status with the FED, the primary recipient of the benefits has been, is and will be, the federal government. Remember, all the member banks are forced to be members and stockholders of the Federal Reserve by the Law that Congress enacted, it was not simply a matter of the voluntary action of banks, they were forced to join or lose their charter.

Now, I am not fan of banks, in particular the large commercial banks, but when a law forces membership into an organization and said membership makes the bank a stockholder of a system you better believe there is a reason for that law and believe me it was intended to bring a type of mercantilism or corporatism about where government would be able to create and maintain a massive patronage system by which it could, through favorable regulation and finance, bring about an effective form of fascism, the marriage of government power and corporate power. Make no mistake; it is vital that we do understand the relevance of the functioning and structure of this system! Within the functions and structure are its weaknesses!


honestann's picture

Very good and very true.  Anyone who thinks these bankster predators haven't understood what they're doing for hundreds of years is naive in the extreme.  They are predators of the most obscene kind, predators who feed on and destroy honesty, ethics, justice, liberty, productivity and individualism.  They must be completely destroyed.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla's picture

Dream on!  The FED is more powerful than USG!  It will never go down because the government will go down with it.  The only thing holding the USG together is fiat confetti, the perpetual inflation tax machine and the Petrodollar that supports it along with the illusion that it is actually worth something. Ending the FED would mean ending the crumbs that the serfs hold so dearly and fight so hard over.  Ain't going to happen.

Capt. Ray's picture

IF you want to “END the FED” you have to OWN it first. Once you own a fraction, you have it all.



That leaves me to conclude that;

Having control over the fed, at this point, is an easy to be accepted and implemented concept. Then “we the people”, whoever they are, can put it on non-active.


Global problems will have a global outcome.

Cash, Credit/Debit Cards, Reward Cards, PM’s etc, are globally excepted currency concepts. If you were to introduce a “new currency system” than you need the fed’s corporation. The fed owns a fraction of all currency concepts. They own it to the extent that: Wherever you are on this planet; if the fed would stop today, your grocery guy is freaked out tomorrow.


About GW and RP having an evil plan of destruction… give me a break. Both are open for alternatives to PM’s. (Fanatic critics; please come up with an alternative that is already globally excepted and that has no part of it tight to the fed. Thks.)


I live in a city from where the drones are operated.

We own the fed, we own the war.

Don’t let us forget.

Fix It Again Timmy's picture

The Fed does not care one bit about the crushing debt level of the US as long as those interest checks from tax revenues keep coming in.  It's a sweet deal, conjure money out of thin air and get an interest check every month.... We don't need no stinkin' principal...

Republicae's picture

Ah yes, but remember that the U.S. Treasury is paid most of the interest payments by the FED, so it is in the interest of the government as much as the FED itself. In 2010, for instance, the net income of the FED was $80.9 Billion, of which it paid the U.S. Treasury $78.4 Billion Dollars. So, let's not place all the blame on the FED, there is an equal share for our own government. Enough blame to go around, I would say.

Despite what many say, the FED is the lapdog of this government, it operates at the pleasure of this government and is, in a large degree, controlled by the government for the government's benefit. While the regional branches of the FED are private, to a degree, the Federal Reserve Board is a government entity with government appointess and are paid by the government. It is nothing more than a patronage system. It is a very politicized agency and functions to maintain the government in its present centralized form. 

Crumbles's picture

... of which it paid the U.S. Treasury $78.4 Billion Dollars.

FWIW, that's about 1.5 months of Social Security payments.

Or several weeks of War.

We are all sooooo screwed.

Republicae's picture

Oh, you think that is bad, this was the interest this government paid on the debt for 2011:


So, yes, if you are not prepared for what is about to happen in this country, then you are indeed screwed. 

buyingsterling's picture

Here's how I explain this to people who are totally unfamiliar with the issue:

'You know about OPEC - they're sitting on top of all this oil, and they dole it out as they see fit, to maximize their profits. It's called 'the OPEC cartel'. There's also a cartel for money, the international banking cartel. They control the price and volume of money just like OPEC does with oil. But unlike OPEC, they're not sitting on tons of wealth. They create it electronically. If you deposit $10 in a bank, they can create another $90 electronically to loan out. Someone gets a credit card of home loan, and the purchasing power appears in their hands, from thin air. They spend the money into circulation, reducing the value of every dollar already there. Every dollar in circulation begins as debt and for its lifetime it earns interest to the banking cartel, paid by you and every holder of dolars, even though the bankers have contributed no real wealth to the world. They just use the laws they wrote to get something for nothing.'

AnAnonymous's picture

The oil cartel has nothing to do with the FED.

The FED is one entity furthering US best interests, the oil cartel is that, a cartel, an aggregation of different entities with different purposes, goals, wants and wishes.

my puppy for prez's picture

..."furthering US best interests..."


I heard in the news that the FED is going to monitor the internet and social media regarding its opponents, but I thought they would be a little more clever and choose more qualified paid trolls!

Pitchman's picture

"Why do the American people stand by a CENTRAL BANK; the Federal Reserve? It is owned by the banks themselves charging us interest on every dollar in circulation.  The Founding Fathers fought the revolution to free us from this model of DEBT SLAVERY ECONOMICS!  Their clear intent, as set forth in the Constitution was; the nations currency is to be issued by the government with no interest attached?  The governments issuance of currency is the very definition of sovereignty.   To do otherwise is to relinquish our rights as a free people.  Is it any wonder we find ourselves where we are today?" - Inflection Point

North Dakota has a booming oil industry.  If you haven't considered the other reasons why it has the best economy in the country, now is your chance.   Bill Still reports from Washington and Virginia. 


bruiserND's picture

Command and control central government has become the major impediment to Americas's business.   As we change the atmosphere in this country we need to push the government back, now that it is crystal clear to all that this 80 year experiment in Command and control central government is a dismal failure by any and all measurements.

Pitchman's picture

Unfortunately a command and control central corporatocracy is Americas's business.



See: Anonymous Shines A Light On The Hypocracy Of Our Leaders - The OccupyWallStreet, the movement and its original message. 

"Above all, we aim to break up the global banking cartel centered at the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlements and World Bank."



It's not over until it's over. Shot, pissed on, rolled in flour, and deep fried. Then, it's over. Silver bullets, bitchez!

Heroic Couplet's picture

Gee, Zero Hedge had a chart in the last three days that showed doctors, surgeons, and such make stunningly good incomes.

So why is Ron Paul, MD, in Washington, DC? To line his pockets with lobbyists money, of course. It's fun to see Zero Hedge contradict itself. Explains Ron and Rand Paul. Ron Paul is right in the place where all legislature starts, the House of Representatives. Has Ron Paul been able to get the Republicans:  Limbaugh, Kochs, Murdoch, McConnell, and Boehner behind him and get legislation passed?

No. Ron Paul is a failure today in the legislature. He's only after the White House status for collecting more lobbyists money: defense spending, endless, wars, financial sector handouts. Ron Paul will accomplish nothing if he's in the White House if he's accomplished nothing in the House of Representatives.

As for term limits, Mitch McConnell is the Republican blocking term limits in the Senate. You can look at his lips and tell he's kissing lobbyist butt.


my puppy for prez's picture

OMG!!!  You must have arrived off your spaceship this morning!

You OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING of Ron Paul, or are just a paid FED troll.

Ron Paul wants to END the wars, and CLOSE most of the bases we have all over the world.  He gets crucified about it ALL the time by neocons!

Ron Paul DOES NOT participate in the Congressional pension or medical plan, has never voted for a congressional pay raise or a single tax hke!

Your level of ignorace is BREATHTAKING!

akak's picture

"Paging Herman 'mark of' Cain ... paging Herman 'mark of' Cain ... "

AnAnonymous's picture

Exposing Ron Paul what he is: a professional and dynastic politician is not welcomed on this site.

Swarms of Paultards to claim that their idol is going to change the days. Even though the US citizen nature is eternal.

Republicae's picture

WTF does that garble mean? Did you read that after you wrote it or were you just winging it?

akak's picture

Don't worry about AnonymousAsshole, Republicae --- he is just a babbling troll who does not and can not add anything to the conversation, except diversion into flippant castigation of, and blind hatred of, the American people (as opposed to the American federal government, which he refuses to ever rightfully condemn instead).  He is nothing but a kneejerk hater.

Libertarian777's picture

You mean how he's on the congressional pension? Oh wait , he's not.
You mean how he's on the congressional healthcare plan? Oh wait he's not.
You mean how his office is constantly over budget? Oh wait it returns funds to the treasury every year.

So the only thing you could possibly bring up is how he gets earmarks for his district. But he votes no on the omnibus bill, but will apply to have those taxes collected from his constituents spent in his district (returning the tax money he did not initially vote for). Give it some thought and in the context of Washington it make perfect sense

Republicae's picture

Ron Paul...lining his pockets with lobbiest money? Come now, get real, lobbiest don't even stop by his office, they know better. 

JR's picture

Surely you have confused Ron Paul with Congressman Barney Frank or some such legislator with so many favor rewards tacked onto their person that it’s difficult to walk.

Yes, Washington is the headquarters of graft…and the biggest graft dealers are the investment banks now running the Federal Reserve, the Obama Administration and most of the regulatory agencies…for their own benefit.

One man stands against this national tragedy. One man has done more to expose these crimes than any other. One man knows where the cancer of our financial system originates. Ron Paul. And it's wrong to confuse him with someone else.

oldmanagain's picture

Euro has no Fed, hows that working out?

Republicae's picture

The problem with the EURO is one of distinct and separate nations, each with cultural and lingistic differences, economic is not because they lack a "FED", believe me. A common currency that was virtually forced on countries through promises that could not possibly be kept.

penisouraus erecti's picture

They have ours to bail their sorry asses out, and the IMF, SO HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT?

Ckierst1's picture

Dude, you can't leave any life in it at all.  It has to be killed right down to the roots and salt sowed on the spot.  Federal Reserve delenda est!  Despite some other problems, Andy Jackson was spot on on the central bankster issue.

JR's picture

The ruse in the Federal Reserve scheme is that all the interest on this money created out of nothing is paid eventually by human effort. And, in that our entire money supply, according to G. Edward Griffin, exists only because it was borrowed by someone, that means “that every American dollar in the entire world is earning daily and compounded interest for the banks which created them.”

Asks Griffin, “And what did the banks do to earn this perpetually flowing river of wealth?  They simply waved the magic wand called fiat money,” i.e., money by decree.

Writes Griffin in “The Creatures from Jekyll Island,” The significance of that that the total of this human effort ultimately is for the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.”

And, that, says Griffin, is really all one needs to know about the operation of the banking cartel under the protection of the Federal Reserve. 

“It is immaterial that men everywhere are forced by law to accept these nothing certificates in exchange for real goods and services. We are talking here, not about what is legal, but what is moral. Thomas Jefferson observed at the time of his protracted battle against central banking in the United States, ‘No one has a natural right in the trade of money lender but he who has money to lend,’” i.e., real money earned by someone’s labor and talent that they are fully entitled to receive interest on, not money created out of nothing “by the stroke of a pen or the click of a computer key.”