Obama Deception?

[Diniden]

Though I'm not at all a believer in conspiracy and mass evil workings of an elite few who want to rule the world, I do enjoy picking apart what is realistic in ideas such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

They move a little fast for me and seem to sketch around some ideas too quick, but I think they have some good thoughts regarding the banking system.

It started making me think, what the heck is a bank? After thinking about it, it became clear to me that to the people they are a safe place to store money. NOTHING else. May be a little profit in interest, but that's it. To the business they are a quick way to pool together investors to jump start a business of some sort.

Well, those are some nice benefits received from a bank. So the bank provides this service for the investor and the business. However, the transactions are 100% efficient. The bank gets a little to a lot of the deals that go down between them. Money given to a bank is like money going to a black hole. They don't produce anything and it doesn't cost barely anything to provide their service this day and age. They just handle a little data flow and some fancy as snot buildings.

A drain present in an environmental system is just weakens the environmental system, leaving some unknown entity or person with all that drained off wealth.

The more I try to justify a bank in an environmental system the more I keep coming up with: the banks of today are crap! How can they freakin' charge me $5 a month just for holding onto my money (which is just stored in binary numbers somewhere) and then they use my money to invest to make more profit for themselves??? HOW?!?

Banks are something wickedly perversely corrupted. It actually makes me shake with rage when I start thinking how little they do to "preserve" my money while they flat out steal it from me and make even more of a profit from it all.

BAH!!! *anger*

Well at any rate, I'd like you all to tear this documentary apart and let me know what thoughts arise. I'm thinking about starting to buy all the closest to illegal munitions I can get for now, just in case. I hate the thought of suddenly being stripped of the great freedom this land has had, whether the thought be from some stupid agenda or from a legit source.

[Tonus]

I've seen this linked before, but cannot bring myself to watch a 113 minute propaganda piece about Obama, even when it's critical of him. :p

But the description tells you all that you need to know. The whole deal about "new world orders" and shadow organizations that secretly rule the world are the work of conspiracy nuts. What they do is present some factual information that can be linked through their bizarre theories, while omitting any facts or information that would disprove their claims. Thus, some of what they say is true and accurate, but the larger part of their premise is completely made up.

[Grunthos]

The economically valuable thing a (properly run) bank provides is the absorbtion and sharing of risk.

Interest is nothing more than compensation for risk. Banks provide risk management. This is why allowing the government to meddle in the risk/benefit calculation used to determine bank operating procedures in order to achieve politically-driven goals (aka home ownership for those unable to make the agreed payments) caused such havoc; it moved the risk/benefit calculation away from a reality basis.

Environmentally, a bank is supposed to be like a shock absorber or surge tank, eliminating pulsations and allowing for short-duration high-draw loads that the system otherwise could not support.

[Edmaster]

The economically valuable thing a (properly run) bank provides is the absorbtion and sharing of risk.

Interest is nothing more than compensation for risk. Banks provide risk management. This is why allowing the government to meddle in the risk/benefit calculation used to determine bank operating procedures in order to achieve politically-driven goals (aka home ownership for those unable to make the agreed payments) caused such havoc; it moved the risk/benefit calculation away from a reality basis.

Environmentally, a bank is supposed to be like a shock absorber or surge tank, eliminating pulsations and allowing for short-duration high-draw loads that the system otherwise could not support.

Agreed. Banks were generally just a way to deposit funds without risk of loss, as well as a source of credit or loans when necessary. The riskier the person, the more interest one would be expected to pay. The problem came when the government began interfering, forcing banks to grant loans to those who were clearly unable to afford said loans. As a result, banks became overwhelmed with high-risk securities, AKA toxic assets. Obama and other critics like to blame the banks for this chain of events, but the fact is that this all traces back to governmental interference.

The sooner Obama gets his nose out of the private sector's affairs, the sooner this nation can recover.

Sadly, it seems the current administration has no plan to reverse direction anytime soon. Meanwhile the media continues to lap up every word Obama has to say, despite their attempts at trying to be "past the honeymoon stage." The honeymoon may be over, but the MSM is still baking cakes for Obama on a regular basis, and they know it.

[Diniden]

Aye, I think this video could have been a lot more effective if they were just making a documentary about why we shouldn't have a federal reserve rather than hyping it all up under the pretense of a huge conspiracy. Whether or not the fed reserve should exist is more of a real thought and issue.

The documentary also reminded me of some of the bills that went through congress since Obama's election. Why weren't there riots happening after some of those shady "stimulus packages" and what not were signed off after not ever being released for public viewing and before any of congress could even read 1/8 of the document? Some of those bills were discussing some pretty major sums of money while opening the doors to some pretty major stuff...

[Edmaster]

Fear tactics ("this needs to be signed NOW or this crisis will spell doom for our nation!")

+ strong-arming opponents, usually via blackmail or extortion

+ a silent media, or at best a media that laps up every bit of propaganda that Obama's administration spews out

= unpopular bills pushing through Congress with hardly any real opposition.

And having a near-filibuster-proof Congress helps.

And if a bill DOES get rejected first try, they simply lock the doors and force the House to re-vote until they get the result they want by repeating the above steps as many times as necessary.

[Grunthos]

I have to admit, when I saw the thread title my first reaction was, "Which one?"

[Diniden]

The title was misleading...my apologies