Was this the change you liberal progressives were waiting for? Was this the plan? All this talk, and excuse making for a failed liberal agenda of bringing all boats down in the name of "fairness" is bull****! We are NOT better off with Obama in office! We are NOT recovering under his administration, because that was never the plan. We are in decline, ushered in, and sped up by this progressive trash in the WH for the purpose of bringing this country down, because he can't stand what our place in the world was.
Don't agree with me? I couldn't care less! IF all you want to do is attack, then do us all a favor and don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss the conclusion of the AP report, then I am listening.
The problems are not in due to Obama, but is to a monetary system that we partake in. If I am existence only to master the material world and think about self-maximization at all costs, there is going to be some consequences. People can make more money if their product or service is tailored to other markets; so markets across the world become interconnected over time. With money, people have the power to gear regulations to benefit themselves, and once more money is obtained, is easier to accrue more wealth through financial instruments. Money itself, being the breathing blood of societies with a monetary system is means to control and manipulate a whole population. The issuance of debt, not only forces people into a life of labor but promotes the dependence upon money itself. This will result in the gap between the lower and upper class to increase. There is only so much money.
If people were to actually learn about how the banking system works, rather than reading The Odyssey, people would realize how immoral and disgusting our system is. The very loans that you or I owe, is
not the bank's money, but is rather their customers. Banks bet on the fact that not everybody is going to withdraw their money at one time, so only a fraction of their deposits can be stored as reserves. The remaining chunk of money, is then issued out to the people; it is the money that was deposited by the people. Not to mention, the balance sheets of all their customers are not affected with this transaction. So essentially, money is created out of thin air. That, plus interest on the loans they issue, are the banks' money. A fraction of that, needs to be paid to The Fed for the FDIC insurance. The rest of the bank's money, which includes their leverage, can be turned to financial instruments to accrue more wealth. The Fed, with all of those deposits from its satellite banks, repeats the process. Only a fraction of this money needs to be issued to other banks because only a fraction of the people are going to need withdrawals. Therefore, they issue loans, whereby more money is literally created out of thin air, but only this time in large quantities. This includes loans to the government, which is pretty much equal to our national deficit.
If you take the deficit of the government owing The Fed, that debt is the overall money supply. The Fed also participates in financial instruments, (even creating new ones) as well as issuing loans to other various countries, putting those countries in debt. Here is my point.
1.) Banks use their money to enact a life of oppression to the people.
2.) All debts could be paid in full by the banking sector.
Because the banks use a fractional reserve banking system, the literal cost of all the loans, or credit, is created by the banks. They could very easily use that money to pay themselves. But there are two prime reasons (and there is probably more) that they don't do this. They are:
1.) Forcing people to have to work through the issuance of debt. What's the point of having all the money in the world if I have to make my sandwich at Subway? What about the driver of my taxi? Why would anyone want to clean after themselves if they own the world? The fathers of the banking system used the false assumption that individual gain is the secret to life and set to gain the most themselves.
2.) Stagnation. I think that is the term. Currency would not increase or decrease in value, because money is neither being created nor taken out of the money supply. It would largely depend upon the rate of money circulation rather than physical supply. That doesn't work.
Life doesn't have to be this way. There are ideas already present that could drastically improve how we live. There would be substantially less exploitation of both ourselves and the environment, and the lives of everybody would drastically increase. People could explore more of what makes them human, leading to a more fulfilling life, rather than working a 9-5 sorting out boxes, when we have the know how now to automate mostly anything. And no, it isn't socialism or communism. Just look for it, or think of a system by yourself.
It is the system itself that is to blame. Not the president.
