It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The coming financial crisis may make 1929 look like a 'walk in the park'

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by SEEWHATUDO
 

You're living beyond your means. You have three children. Expensive, aren't they?


I just couldn't let this one pass...

How rude and insulting of you.


Let me remind people that a person's economic status can unforeseeably change at any given time.

I'm not saying that there aren't clear examples of when people foolishly have too many children...but give me a break...

:shk:


[edit on 28-12-2007 by loam]


My cousin and her husband have 14 yes I said 14 children and they are the religous Zealots who believe that god will provide for the family. Heck 3 of her kids dont even have birth certificates and 6 of them dont even have Social security numbers. Welfare and public aid pay for the food and housing bills and the father is a lazy man.

They are all home schooled and the father and mother never graduated high school. I feel sorry for the kids .

When the SHTF the children of this family will suffer greatly . I have one child , my daughter who is 17yrs old and she is a hard worker and more mature than most 25yr olds I meet.

I as a parent worry greatly about the future and just what will happen when the SHTF and total chaos ensues. I have been buying survival supplies for the past 4 months, $20 here $50 there slowly building a means to live on when all goes bad.




posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I don't think our economy is geared to be friendly to childrearing. try being a stay at home mom our there in the real world, living on just the pay your husband brings home....try to convince him that your healthcare is as important as his and is worthy of that obscene amount that it would cost him to insure you through his employer.
By the way, both me and my husband work, we don't even make half of that $100,000 and my husband is a tradesman with 30 years experience in the trade!! everybody on this board who uses a tool, or runs a machine more than likely depends on people like him to do his thing....but well, according to many of yas, he didn't deserve to have a family, because he certainly couldn't afford the one we had....oh, ya, the "poor" in this country deserved to have families obviously, since our taxes would regularly go up to help pay for their healthcare and such...but no, someone who's been in such a necessary trade for that long, no, he didn't....

okay, got ya ... we want more "poor" drug addicts and misfits in our society, less people willing to learn the trades, so they can make your tools, fix your plumbing, ect....gotcha!! I'll begin letting the younger generation, starting with my sons know this..... matter of fact, I already have....they have been completely indoctrinated into the idea that they should never have kids, since well, their attribute of being hard, dedicated workers would prohibit them from ever being able to support them....

for those of you out there that are struggling to raise and provide for your kids, I know it's hard, but well, keep your kids close to your hearts, do your best to provide for their needs, and forgive yourself when you can't provide all their wants....it will be worth it in the end...

my kids get along very well with us, and are welcomed to stay in our home as long as they like..(and remain childless, and keep bringing home a paycheck)... they pay us a modest amount (we're losing money really when you consider how much we pay in food and such)...and they sock the rest away...and we have a little extra... hopefully, when the time comes that we can no longer work, they will have socked enough away to be able to help us....
which is something that those who've chosen to place their money above having a family will not have....and I doubt very much that they will have social security either...or their iras or much of anything else...

the last laugh could very well be ours!!!



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Noscitare
 



100k is not a modest income. And if one of you loses your job, what then? Say bye-bye to hunky-dory land.


What I wrote was "



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
just wondering, have you budgeted in the cost of insuring the health of the one who loses their job??
that's a pretty big increase in cost usually, and well, it was kind of hard for us to grapple with while I was out of work....impossible really, and well, that is why I can tell you now.....it's far less costly to grapple with it, than to not and have something actually happen and you need something you ain't got. also, although one of yas don't have a job, you will in actuality, have a job....finding a job, and well, that will cost more in gas, maybe might have to increase the clothing budget a little at the beginning, ect. hope you don't think that the loss of the job will equal a decrease in these expenses...you still might find yourself needed two cars on the road, ect...

if the middle family income is around $50,000 and that middle income family loses one of their incomes...even if we say it's the least of the two, their income will drop to around $30,000...depending on the size of the family, hey, they might luck out and actually be able to get food stamps....compliments of all the other middle income families out there trying to stretch their dollars to make ends meet. the goal should be to have families as independant as possible, especially from the federal handouts....so, although many families would be able to make it.....are they really making it, or are they just being shifted into the handouts line?



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
just wondering, have you budgeted in the cost of insuring the health of the one who loses their job??


Actually, yes we have budgeted for that possibility.

A big part of the reason that we are able to do this is that we are what at one time were referred to as "DINK"s -- Double-Income-No-Kids. We made the conscious decision not to have kids because we felt that we'd never be able to both give a child everything that it would deserve AND also provide for our own retirement WITHOUT being a burden upon a child. When we got married we looked at our financial situation at that time, made educated assessments with regard to the future of this planet and decided to forgo children.

I know that I might be coming off as being somewhat insensitive. But I'm not. I understand that sometimes the ca-ca-that-could-not-be-anticipated really hits the fan and one can find oneself in a real pickle. I do feel for the folks to whom that happens and I do think that they should be assisted. But at the same time, there are one heck of a lot of folks out there who just reproduce and spend WAY beyond their currents means, much less taking into consideration what bad doo-doo might come their way.

It all comes down to taking responsibility for one's own actions.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
People hurted by the housing crisis are now creating tent cities in California... worse than 1929 some said? Maybe.

And this is just the beginning. And just imagine the political repercussions of such a crash? Remember Hitler?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Noscitare
 


Well, this is the way I see it...

first, and foremost, think about how much yous are making....and yous see that you can't afford a family, not if yous want to take care of yourselves now and in the future...
the key words here are:
you can't afford to have a family...
so, I take it that your position is that no one who is making as much or less than you should be having families they can't afford? what, do you reckon, would be the percentage of the population that shouldn't be having children then?


Our baby boomers have just started entering retirement, that means that they will gradually be leaving the tax rolls, and quite possibly become recipients of the funds rather than contributors.
IT also means that they will begin to draw on their IRA accounts, ect.
It also means a bigger demand on our healthcare system.

You'll have about 15 years of this happening, and well, I'll be amoung the last.
Less babies being born, and those babies being sent into wars to be damaged mentally and phsically to me would equal less of a workforce able to pay taxes....and we wonder why they are leaving our borders wide open!

so, that would also mean, less people investing into those IRAs and such, wouldn't it...
and please remember....I think that some of these IRA's are gonna find themselves hurt by the housing bubble's pop! and God only knows what financial scandels and mismanagements will come to light in the future.
To be quite honest, I have my doubts that there will be any help coming from social security, the IRA's or even if I put my cash into the banks for safekeeping. the dollar's value will continue to drop, the future taxpayers will be strapped just trying to pay the rediculously high debt we've racked up, it will be quite obvious to them that they have no future to invest in not to mention, no available funds to invest!!
SO, we've invested in the next generation, and a little bit of metals....and we've tried to keep the family close together...since well, this is how the mexicans seem to make in on their minumum wage jobs, isn't it? this is how many families made it through the depression, they stuck together, worked together, pooled their resources and well, if two ladies can manage to keep the family home, take care of their elderly mom, raise their kids, and still come out with some valuable heirlooms, which, is my grandma's story....I'm sure my three boys can make it through, as long as they are willing to stay together, work together, and well, help each other out when it's needed. and well, I got a feeling they will be needed by society. as I see it, it kind of looks like most of our younger population will have to work in the healthcare field, just to take care of that mammouth aging population.
me?? I just plan not to reach retirement age....






[edit on 30-12-2007 by dawnstar]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Noscitare
 


So you don't have kids because you can't afford them. And this sounds fair how with our borders hemmoraging illegal immigrants? You should be angry too!



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Noscitare
 

[...snip...]
the key words here are:
you can't afford to have a family...
so, I take it that your position is that no one who is making as much or less than you should be having families they can't afford? what, do you reckon, would be the percentage of the population that shouldn't be having children then?
[...snip...]


Yes....I've considered that implication of my decision, i.e. should people of a financial status similar to mine also not be having children. And if they should not, then from where will come the future population of the earth? I don't really have the answer to it. In the long run, I think that it is all just one big crapshoot. Had I been more of a gambling man the wife and I could've gone ahead and had kids and, who knows? maybe everything might've turned out just fine. There's just no way of knowing. But, you make the best, most responsible decisions that you can, based on the available data, and then live with it.

I've got one friend who has finances similar to mine, has six great kids and, while he doesn't have much of a savings, is absolutely happy. I've got another friend who is much better off than me financially but has only two kids, both of whom are pretty much messed-up.

Like I said...it's a crapshoot. If this economy gets much worse, then I'll have made the right decision. If economic miracle happens then, while not necessarily having made the "wrong" choice, will perhaps not have made the optimum choice. But either way, given the data at the time the decision was made, it was the best decision for us.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Noscitare
 


So you don't have kids because you can't afford them. And this sounds fair how with our borders hemmoraging illegal immigrants? You should be angry too!


Well, I've always been a bit of a pessimist and the way it looks to me is that most of us are just the cannon fodder and wage-slaves of the Elite. And I don't see things getting much better. Thus, why would I want to bring another human being into a situation like that?

Were I a gambler, I suppose I could consider the possibility that were I to have a kid that he or she might turn out to be some kind of real-life "John Connor" who would save the world, but as I said in a previous post, while I'm not averse to taking a risk now-and-again, I'm really not much of a high-stakes gambler.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Noscitare
 



So then it seems you do admit there is a problem with the system beyond poor personal choices. After all, there are masses of people who are "cannon-fodder for slave-wages."

I too have decided not to have children, but it was a costly decision. It cost me my soul.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
It is not the agenda of the NWO to implement depopulation. They are preparing for mass depopulation that will occur naturally, even if they are speeding it along a bit. I posted the following at New World Order Questions About Population Control:




If the NWO intends to deliberately wipe out the bulk of human population on Earth, I certainly believe that it is technologically feaseable and within their means.

As I said before though, I think they are just planning to manage an inevitable population crash.

I'm gonna share a little story I heard back in college, but I can't remember the specific details for sure so please don't nitpick. The general point of the story remains the same. This is how a population crash occurs.

Teddy Roosevelt liked to hunt game in Yellowstone. It may have been moose in particular, so let's just say that's what it was. The only problem was, that the wolves were getting their fair share and leaving little for the hunters. So the President decided to call it open-season on the wolves. Within a year or two there were plenty of moose, too many in fact. They now overpopulated the area, and could no longer be sustained by the environment. They did not start do die off, or die off slowly to adjust to their environment. They all died suddenly. There were not enough resources to sustain them all, but they each took a small share, and therefore there were not enough resources for even some to survive. If a few had been able to horde away resources, they would have been the only ones to survive.

The NWO is hording the resources. Everything is funneling right into their pockets. They may be speeding up the process even, to let the masses work even more furiously to complete their master plan, but I think they are simply capitalising on the inevitable.


There is of course, also the possiblity that there may be some other great cataclysm that will befall mankind other than depopulation. If they know about it and have predicted it, they are surely not going to share that info with us. Maybe there really is something to the whole 2012 thing, that they knew was inevitable all along. Maybe the survivors of Atlantis are the perpetrators of the NWO.

Keep in mind, that it is the design of their system, the pyramid scheme, which incurs the debt. And they will never have to repay it when the bubble bursts. They get to walk away with all the natural resources that were put up to inflate that debt. This includes property, goods, and yes even human rights.



thought provoking post

leads me to speculate that when a system as insane as fractional reserve banking and debt reaches the end of it's life cycle, society will go into a tail spin. especially since the economy is held together by this system of debt and when that has run it's course, the sh** hits the fan.

Gov'ts may have been planning for this for a few decades, perhaps building shelters and what not.

I don't think any single event will happen in 2012. I do wonder if certain people throughout history have had the ability to "remote view" the future. Especially events that were LIKELY to happen and likely to leave a severe emotion imprint, perhaps the breakdown of society is complete or accelerates leading up to this time period. Either way the uncertainty is abound and some people feel better putting aside this talk as non sense so i will finish with:

depopulation is not irrational IMO , especially if the construct for this irrational belief is that the rapidly expanding population is necessary for more credit and debt and thus bankers wealth.

Look more population isn't necessary, more debt per person does the trick just fine. And when the financial system needs to be leveraged a la structured finance and all these fancy investment vehicles should give people a clue that these were probably the last desperate throws of a system on it's last legs. More population wouldn't solve this problem. So if the monetary system is going to collapse, what would the elite's care if there is less people around so that they can gather up a bit more of the resources necessary to have a near monopoly on whatever capital the next system will be built upon. The elite Crave POWER and they treasure MOST the power to Print the money and create monetary policy.

A critical look at history should prove this obvious. When the monetary system collapses, the more dead the less competition for them to get all the natural resources, and the less handouts they will have to give out. If there is more population , there is the potential for more disorder when implementing a new system and that means more handouts to give people a minimum standard of living necessary to keep them obedient. As far as the elite are concerned when the monetary system breaks down, elimination of the entire population is NOT acceptable, but HALF well that's not so bad, that may be easier to control and may be key because the trauma of living through such an event may get the populace to be desperate to accept any kind of solution to restore their basic needs

*i would concede the current system is indeed DEAD, but the bankers are just tyring to slow the demise inorder to implement the new model, the actions that we take now are of immense importance in the standard of living americans will live through over the rest of their lives and their place in the new economic order. The multi nationals are using this collapse to their advantage (not saying they created it, i mean the system is hundreds of years old, but no doubt they played a role) in an attempt to eliminate the nation state and implement a fascist centralized model.

I am as sure of this as i am my eyes are brown



[edit on 5-1-2008 by cpdaman]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Oh, I disagree with the comment about the banking system being dead.

This is not the end of capitalism, it's just the end of cheap credit and a hard lesson in why you should never spend what you don't have (That goes to businesses as well). Sorry to use such harsh terms, but there are members of our society who just don't understand the risk and spend WELL above their means.

I'm 21, university student in the UK. Yes, I have a student loan (which doesn't effect my credit rating..thank God), but I am smart enough not to get a student credit card and overdraft from my own bank. Why? Cause it's a one way ticket to debt. Sadly, many don't think like me and just think "spend now, worry later".

I do not own any store cards either. 25% interest rate? It's extortion.

For a year, maybe two, the banking system will undergo a fundamental change to who they lend money to.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


It cannot be denied that there are people, companies, and even governments who spend irresponsibly and well beyond their means. This is not the real problem however. In fact, spending is what keeps the ecomony going.

The problem happens when people, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a position of either borrowing money that they know they have no means of repaying, or quite literally freezing, starving, and living on the streets.

The frivelous spenders are not ususally the ones who are left out in the cold. They may have to turn to their parents to bail them out of fiancial ruin, may lose their exotic car, or even have to move into a smaller house to learn their lesson. But then there are the people who know full well the consequences of their actions, but are left with little choice. They put the utitly payment on a credit card, delaying the inevitable, hoping and praying that something will change or an opportunity will present itself.



For a year, maybe two, the banking system will undergo a fundamental change to who they lend money to.


When the banks knowingly lend money to people who cannot afford to repay what they have borrowed, then it is clear that the banks are practising usury and that poverty is an avoidable condition which is intentionally placed upon society by the lenders for their own gain.




[edit on 1/5/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
It cannot be denied that there are people, companies, and even governments who spend irresponsibly and well beyond their means. This is not the real problem however. In fact, spending is what keeps the ecomony going.


Of course, it's basic economics.



The problem happens when people, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a position of either borrowing money that they know they have no means of repaying, or quite literally freezing, starving, and living on the streets.


But this leads onto a very interesting topic, which I'm glad you've raised.

Social society/welfare. Should the government provide more money towards these schemes such as unemployment benefit and social housing (Do you have social housing in the States?) because you've just brought an interesting idea to this thread


I think we should be looking at the idea of a welfare state and the government providing in certain areas (health care too?)

[edit on 5-1-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
There is social housing, or housing subsidized by what we used to call "welfare."

The welfare system here in the states is not the social engineering project that I would like to see. Handouts are never the answer, but neither is starvation. The system that is in place is really designed to perpetuate the impoverished conditions of the recipients, generation after generation, simply to secure jobs for the workers within the welfare system. This also leaves people who deserve to be added to the welfare rolls, literally left out in the cold. The waiting list for emergency housing here in New York is over five years long. The system is obviously flawed beyond usefulness.

What I would suggest is a massive public works program. Something along the lines of this perhaps: If you want to live in public subsidized housing, you have to prove your need and aid in the construction. Anyone recieving benefits and/or housing should be "on-call" to work at public work sites for the duration of ther benefits. That is, anyone on welfare must work for the public until they secure employment in the private sector.

[edit on 1/5/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Ok i have had it. many are debating IF this crisis i gonna come and yes i belive so. Iam not an american but i feel the efects of the new world order here in my country slowly but surely just like you have since the depression IMO. its clear that its the super rich elite people that run the show IMO, people know who they are the bilderbergs trilateral commission rockerfellas rothchild ect but fact of the matter is We the people or humans i like to call us are so many and they are so few BUt they got power an ignorance from the general puplic. Now more and more are wakeing up so do something if they disregard the constetution and make there own laws that benefit only them, then its not worth obeying just say f.... you Do what ya want here is an idea.. Qote from the movie lord of war : Bullets change goverments far better than votes; i mean bilderbergs are guarded but if enough show up they are in trouble... especially if people don't give a f.... come one how long are you gonna stand this parody of a democracy, babylon once again ? i live by my own rules cuz they are just as valid as theires however i respect most of the regulations otherwise i would go to jail but if the goverment gives me a fine and i disagree i aint gonna pay it, and if they come to lock me away i will fight for my freedom and existence as a being on this planet, if that make me a criminal then being just is BS. further if enough people begin to starve it should be possible to take down their mansions after all its the biggest ones around. There has just been a killing of a young man here and that has triggred the politicians to demand survailance all over the city when it comes im out there with a spray can painting the lenses thats a start unite and fight thats what they are doing so.... or paint facts one the buildings to make people think like on a bank= worthless credit or on a
court bulding write= injustice to all. federal reserve = private greed. and so on just a small thing but might actually do something like inspire others to act and so in steps....wait actually the best thing we could do is to make it cool you know if the cool kids or whatever has some dope shoes then the rest will allso want them so if conspiracy becomes in oh boy there are gonna be something new in the horizon if we fail to do nothing we deserve nothing.... ohh sorry if i got of topic iam just so mad ... btw i can see the bigger picture ..i think nothing is absolute truth unless you where there.... but to print money for the price of paper and then buy solid materials like houses , gold, silver, weapons ect danm that was a cool trick they pulled but as a middle class man iam faced with the cosequenses in the future and thats leaves me burning with rage ...but i must admit it was very smart thing to do from there point of view. to change 50 cents album get rich or die trying we should get even or die trying and yes i know people might remind me that talking like this is bad for the ats and some say statements like these leads to the marshal law but i think to be faced with the horrible truth makes you more eager to act, and if there is nothing to the cospiracy...lol... there is nothing to fear right? i say bring it on if the prophecy's are true there will be a rise of the people and if not we are done for but i ain't going alone must be possible to take one scumbag with me even if the rise is not in my time some should be noticed to inspire the next ones IMO international bankers should be put to justice for theire crimes but if they control everything there is no justice.. its time for justice to reincarnate in the people and do something edducate , prepare imagine if the next economic crisis, instead of going to the goverment bulding to complain the people march to the rockerfellas, rothchilds ect and take back what they stole from them but it proberbly will never happen main stream will proberbly take it out on eachother instead makes me sad ....well good luck USA



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join