What steps will be taken to shut down the federal reserve banking system and end the corporate influence over?

The steps to shutting it down would be to figure out who is going to take over the many services of the Fed, then have congress change the law.

However, you are unlikely to get much support unless you can present accurate arguments.

- "caught up in a cycle of self generating debt" - The decision to go into debt, whether public or private is not up to the Fed. It is up to individuals, businesses, and governments. For instance, if the government consistently passed balanced budgets, there would be no public debt.

Now you could make the argument that before we had a flexible money supply, we had boom-bust cycles rather than 'debt cycles'. Boom-and-bust cycles ffectively 'cancelled' debt with foreclosures and bankruptcies on a routine basis.

Our current system provides for a money supply that can expand with the economy. Perfect? No, but the Boom/bust cycles of yesteryear are less frequent and, for the most part, replaced by up-and-down cycles. In the past, an economic shock like the sub-prime crisis or 1987 stock market crash would have likely triggered a 'bank panic' and subsequent recession. Today flexible money can be pumped in rapidly to restore confidence.

- "that can never be paid off" - of course it can and then may be replaced by new investments.

There is some nonsense in the anti-fed camp that mathematically our national debt it can never be paid off. You didn't say that so no reason to go into it.

If congress passed a balanced budget 10 years in a row (the life of a 10-year T-BIll), our public debt would be paid off leaving only the interagency obligations.

- " circulation of money itself rather than borrow it from a privately run bank at interest" - There is a lot implied here...

Are you arguing that the government should print money to pay for expenses, rather than run balanced budgets or borrow? Our current deficit runs at about $400B. The base money supply grew by less than $50B last year. You would be advocating growing the money supply by 8x the current non-inflationary rate. Read up on cause of hyperinflation.

re "private bank with interest" - By design, the Treasury never borrows money directly from the Federal Reserve (except once in WWII) . The Fed only buys T-Bills on the open market. And when the Fed owns a T-bIll and earns interest, it returns 90%+ of it back to the Treasury (it's the law).

You imply that the Federal Reserve system is wholly private which is a myth. See http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/f... for the structure.


I commend you for wanting to be an advocate for positive change. But make sure it is founded in facts and not simply anti-fed rhetoric.

Sure, let's put monetary policy in the hands of politicians. That's a GREAT idea. In case you didn't get it, I'm being sarcastic. Questions like this arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the Federal Reserve works. Sure, the system isn't perfect, but it is better than what was before it. The part of your question that is not in bold text shows how little you know about how monetary policy and the Federal Reserve works. Take some money and banking courses to learn how it really works.

The U.S Treasury department is supposed to be doing the job of issuing money.
Ron Paul may be the only politician in Washington that wants to abolish the Fed, the same way Andrew Jackson did so many years ago. And by the way, there was no insane national debt under Andrew Jackson.
**************************************...

I will gladly join your revolution as soon as you propose a plausible alternative. Note that communism failed, feudal states are undesirable and religious rule is not an option.

never, corporations run the country.