Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92G03I20130317

harry wrote:

Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

(Cyprus deposit confiscation)

Yea, I've been following that on zerohedge since sunday morning.

I reconfigured some forex positions before the pre-market open in Asia
on Sunday afternoon, and by sunday evening had made a few thousand
dollars.

You can be assured that 99% of Americans have no idea what happened in
Syprus - let alone even knowing where it is on a map.

Lots of Russian mafia money tied up in Cyprus - along with civillian
money from UK and Germany.

Yea - something like that is probably going to happen in the US about a
year from now.

In Home Guy wrote:

Yea - something like that is probably going to happen in the US about
a year from now.

Well, why not?

What's the real difference between the government seizing a chunk of
your savings and seizing a chunk of your income?

The various governments have long claimed first dibs on your money and
property, if not outright ownership.

[Followups set to something vaguely appropriate]

--
St. Paul, MN

Bert wrote:

Yea - something like that is probably going to happen in the US
about a year from now.

Well, why not?

What's the real difference between the government seizing a chunk
of your savings and seizing a chunk of your income?

That's called a wealth tax. The last time the US gov't tried that was
when they confiscated all public gold.

The various governments have long claimed first dibs on your money
and property, if not outright ownership.

When you vote for the same monkey twice, the one who likes to start
expensive wars that ends up destroying your economy, then yea- you have
to pay for it one way or another.

The Cypriot parliament is going to vote tomorrow on whether or not to make this money grab "legal". I hope they don't allow it, but if they do, then it shakes the foundation of banking to it's core.

That's because the only reason why we don't all get up early tomorrow morning and go to our banks to get our money out is because we've got confidence that they'll give it back any time we want it. That's because the whole idea behind a bank is that it's a safer place to keep your money than under your mattress or stuffed into a mouse hole in your wall.

But, banks don't keep your money in a safe. Most of the deposits a bank has are invested in long term investments like mortgages and loans. So, everyone wanting their money back at the same time would force any bank into immediate bankruptcy. It's really the trust that our banks will give us our money back if and when we want it that keeps the whole system afloat. Without that trust, the whole system collapses, and we can have a global collapse of the world's banking system tomorrow if everyone wanted their money back tomorrow. And, this Cypriot money grab is exactly the kind of thing that can destory that trust that keeps the banking system afloat.

IF, after tomorrow, anyone ever hears rumour of a similar "Tax on Savings" to be implemented in Greece or Italy or Ireland to finance another bail out for those governments, then every European outside of Germany will be lining up to get their money out of their bank. And, that will cause a run on the European banks, and the near economic collapse of 2008 will be repeated, only this time starting in Europe and spreading to North America instead. North American banks hold bonds issued by other banks, including large European banks like ING and the Royal Bank of Scotland. So if those European banks go bankrupt, their bonds become nearly worthless, and that causes the asset value of North American banks to collapse. That's the way the economic collapse spreads.

I think this Cypriot money grab goes way too far in that it shakes people's confidence in keeping their money "safe", by keeping it in the bank, and breaking that trust is playing with fire. I just hope the Cypriot parliament will realize that when they vote tomorrow.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:05:46 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

In Home Guy wrote:

Yea - something like that is probably going to happen in the US about
a year from now.

Well, why not?

If you don't know "why not", you're as dumb as HomoGay. Look at
what's happening in Cyprus (and about to spread across Europe) if
you're that far from reality.

What's the real difference between the government seizing a chunk of
your savings and seizing a chunk of your income?

Destruction of the entire monetary system. That's all.

The various governments have long claimed first dibs on your money and
property, if not outright ownership.

[Followups set to something vaguely appropriate]

Set back to where the discussion is taking place.

A big difference.

You already paid income tax on the money that you have in the bank. The Cypriot government now seizing a chunk of your savings is no different than being taxed twice on the same income. Imagine if, to raise more money, the Cypriot government ALSO levied a tax on all withdrawls from Cypriot bank accounts so that you end up paying tax three times on the same income?
That would definitely force people living in Cyprus to keep their money in cash buried in jars in the flower beds around their homes, and that would spell the end for Cypriot banks, and the jobs of the people that work in those banks.

This whole European Union is turning into an economic train wreck in slow motion. Half the countries in Europe were unofficially bankrupt and cooking their books to make them more palatable in order to gain entry into the European Union. Now, all of that is coming out in the open. Greece, for example, borrowed huge amounts of money to host the 2004 summer Olympics, and that's a big part of the reason they're an economic disaster now. And, as long as Europe's finances are out of order, the economy in North America will be slow because we export much of what we produce to Europe, and we want to be confident that they can pay for what they buy. Untill the Europeans get their ducks in order, businesses over hear are going to be reluctant to spend money building new factories or hiring new employees for them cuz they don't know if things over there are going to improve or collapse entirely.

On 3/18/2013 11:19 AM, Home Guy wrote:
harry wrote:

Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

(Cyprus deposit confiscation)

Yea, I've been following that on zerohedge since sunday morning.

I reconfigured some forex positions before the pre-market open in Asia
on Sunday afternoon, and by sunday evening had made a few thousand
dollars.

You can be assured that 99% of Americans have no idea what happened in
Syprus - let alone even knowing where it is on a map.

Lots of Russian mafia money tied up in Cyprus - along with civillian
money from UK and Germany.

Yea - something like that is probably going to happen in the US about a
year from now.


They already have been doing that for decades every April.

--
Bill
In Hamptonburg, NY
In the Original Orange County (est. 1683)
To Email, remove the double zeros after @

willshak wrote:

Yea - something like that is probably going to happen in the US
about a year from now.

They already have been doing that for decades every April.

Nah, that's not it.

Every Friday is "Bank Closing Day" in the US.

That's when several black SUV's with tinted windows roll up to a bank on
a friday afternoon, and a dozen men in black suits and sunglasses come
out, carrying briefcases, and rush into the bank and kick all the
customers out. The last guy locks the doors and puts out the "bank
closed" sign. The bank may or may not open the following Monday - under
a different name.

Accounts over $100k (or is it $250k?) are screwed.

And when the FDIC goes bankrupt, you will experience banking - Cyprus
Style.

On Monday, March 18, 2013 8:19:09 AM UTC-7, Home Guy wrote:
harry wrote:

Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

(Cyprus deposit confiscation)

Yea, I've been following that on zerohedge since
sunday morning.

I reconfigured some forex positions before the
pre-market open in Asia on Sunday afternoon, and
by sunday evening had made a few thousand dollars.

How did you do when Bernanke planned on driving US
interest rates to zero? Prove it. Even PIMCO got
that one wrong.

You can be assured that 99% of Americans have no
idea what happened in Syprus -

Syrup? Citrus? Old Spice? Sy-ops?
Snaggle Puss? Cypress?

let alone even knowing where it is on a map.

Lots of Russian mafia money tied up in Cyprus -
along with civillian money from UK and Germany.

Cypress is just another example of why the Euro was
a bad idea. Countries adopted the Euro mostly because
they were fiscally irresponsible in the first place
and didn't want to clamp down on wasteful spending and
inflation because of the risks to incumbent politicians.
So by switching their currencies to the Euro they
essentially handed over their economies to Germany.

wrote in news:191e490a-e921-46d0-bde6-
:

On Monday, March 18, 2013 8:19:09 AM UTC-7, Home Guy wrote:
harry wrote:

Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

(Cyprus deposit confiscation)

Yea, I've been following that on zerohedge since
sunday morning.

I reconfigured some forex positions before the
pre-market open in Asia on Sunday afternoon, and
by sunday evening had made a few thousand dollars.

How did you do when Bernanke planned on driving US
interest rates to zero? Prove it. Even PIMCO got
that one wrong.

You can be assured that 99% of Americans have no
idea what happened in Syprus -

Syrup? Citrus? Old Spice? Sy-ops?
Snaggle Puss? Cypress?

let alone even knowing where it is on a map.

Lots of Russian mafia money tied up in Cyprus -
along with civillian money from UK and Germany.

Cypress is just another example of why the Euro was
a bad idea. Countries adopted the Euro mostly because
they were fiscally irresponsible in the first place
and didn't want to clamp down on wasteful spending and
inflation because of the risks to incumbent politicians.
So by switching their currencies to the Euro they
essentially handed over their economies to Germany.

Countries adopted the euro, because the idea of a single currency and no
exchange rate fluctuations, banks imposing exchanging fees, etc etc was
so persuasive. I really liked being able to travel in Europe (I quite
often went from Holland through Belgium to France and Italy) without
having to recalculate from Dutch guilders to Belgian franks to French
franks and to Italian lire, all being widely different in value.

The problem was that "they" instituted a single currency, but didn't
institute similar taxing and economic policies. Some didn't understand
the need, others hoped that would automagically follow (yea, big whoop!).
Then they admitted other countries to the euro and just plainly believed
the books of the authorities in those countries. Now there are problems
(big surprise). Countries like Greece and Italy that were used to have
their currencies get devalued every so often to make their economy run in
tune with the powerful countries like Germany, UK and US, can't do that
anymore and now have to come up with the revenue by taxation and economic
reforms. And that is painful - no kidding.

Cyprus seems to be an even more special case because it is (it seems) a
haven for dubious moneys to get laundered lily-white. Mostly Russian,
but there is an excessive amount of UK money (and other countries') as
well. That is why they tried to tax "savings", without thinking through
the consequences.

We'll see how it all packs out.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han used improper usenet message-composition style by unnecessarily
full-quoting:

Cyprus seems to be an even more special case because it is (it
seems) a haven for dubious moneys to get laundered lily-white.
Mostly Russian,

The analogy that I've heard goes as follows:

Americans would be ****ed if their tax dollars were used to bail out a
Texas bank (and by extension the account holders of the bank) that held
significant deposits sourced from Mexican drug cartels.

Why were the Cypriot banks going bankrupt?

They seemed to be heavily invested in Greek bonds.

wrote:

I reconfigured some forex positions before the
pre-market open in Asia on Sunday afternoon, and
by sunday evening had made a few thousand dollars.

How did you do when Bernanke planned on driving US
interest rates to zero? Prove it. Even PIMCO got
that one wrong.

Simple.

I was short USD:CAD

On 3/18/2013 11:04 AM, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92G03I20130317


One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:52:35 -0400, Frank
wrote:

On 3/18/2013 11:04 AM, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92G03I20130317


One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment

Good one Frank!

They now have a European Union sponsored bank robbery...got the
government they voted for.

On Monday 18 March 2013 18:02 Oren wrote in alt.home.repair:

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:52:35 -0400, Frank
wrote:

On 3/18/2013 11:04 AM, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...us-parliament-
idUSBRE92G03I20130317


One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment

Good one Frank!

They now have a European Union sponsored bank robbery...got the
government they voted for.

"They" might have, assuming you mean Cyprus.

We (UK) did not get a sodding vote. We had a vote on the EEC in 1975 which
was nothing like the EU - and few punters imagined the EU in its present
form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_... erendum,_1975

Archbishop Makarios III will be spinning in his grave - still, I suppose
they could strap some magnets on him and have an energy export to rival
Russian gas.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

On 03/18/13 02:35 pm, Tim Watts wrote:

They now have a European Union sponsored bank robbery...got the
government they voted for.

"They" might have, assuming you mean Cyprus.

We (UK) did not get a sodding vote. We had a vote on the EEC in 1975 which
was nothing like the EU - and few punters imagined the EU in its present
form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_... erendum,_1975

My late parents -- and I wonder how many more Brits beside -- were
totally opposed to the Common Market but could not bring themselves to
vote for the party that opposed UK membership in the Common Market and
kept voting for the party that was in favor of the UK joining. They then
kept complaining about Brussels this and Brussels that.

Perce

On Mar 18, 6:02*pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:52:35 -0400, Frank

wrote:
On 3/18/2013 11:04 AM, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...liament-idUSBR....

One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment

Good one Frank!

They now have a European Union sponsored bank robbery...got the
government they voted for.

The government they DIDN'T vote for.

On Mar 18, 6:02*pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:52:35 -0400, Frank

wrote:
On 3/18/2013 11:04 AM, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...liament-idUSBR....

One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment

Good one Frank!

They now have a European Union sponsored bank robbery...got the
government they voted for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlKJmE4gVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hM8e-r-eUA

On Mar 18, 5:52*pm, Frank wrote:
On 3/18/2013 11:04 AM, harry wrote:

Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...liament-idUSBR...

One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment

Hasn't helped so far.
American bull****.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 5:52 pm, Frank wrote:
On 3/18/2013 11:04 AM, harry wrote:

Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...liament-idUSBR...

One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment
#
# Hasn't helped so far.
# American bull****.

LOL
Sure harry.
We believe you.

On 3/18/2013 10:04 AM, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92G03I20130317


In America, we do it in the form of taxpayer subsidies. Per Bloomberg:

.. . . what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S.
banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars
they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift
from U.S. taxpayers?

.. . . To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the
government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.

Full article at
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...n-a-year-.html

On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:04:38 AM UTC-4, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92G03I20130317

The news reports I heard were that the idea was rejected with prejudice.

Just news of it caused a run on the banks.

Will it happen here? Not a chance. Even just hinting at it will cause a total economic meltdown as people run on the banks to take out all their money.

I can't believe people like Rush are dumb enough to believe that it is even a possibility in the USA. There is not one American politician who would vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their money too.

On Mar 20, 8:53*am, wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:04:38 AM UTC-4, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...liament-idUSBR...

The news reports I heard were that the idea was rejected with prejudice.

Just news of it caused a run on the banks.

Will it happen here? Not a chance. Even just hinting at it will cause a total economic meltdown as people run on the banks to take out all their money.

I can't believe people like Rush are dumb enough to believe that it is even a possibility in the USA. There is not one American politician who would vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their money too.


WARNING!

I just looked at this thread for the first time and clicked on the
reuters link.
Norton blocked it and came back saying it blocked an attack by
Malicious Rootkit Website 33

Well, by now everyone has heard that the Cypriot parliament has rejected that idea and is now looking for another way to finance their bail out plans.

But, if they'd gone ahead with it, I'd have said that would be the 2nd extremely dangerous precedent that a government has set in my lifetime.

The first woulda been George Bush's "Let's build a coalition of the willing to attack Iraq before they attack us" plan. That, effectively set a precedent saying that you could justify starting a war with another country on the grounds that their intentions toward you are hostile. Unfortunately, I don't have enough fingers and toes to count off all the hostile relationships that have existed for years on this Good Earth... Argentina vs. Britain over the Falklands, Israel vs. everyone else over the Palestinians, China vs. Tibet, India vs. Pakistan over the Kashmir, Venezuela vs. Columbia, Turkey vs. Greece over Cyprus, Russia vs. Chechnya over who knows what, China vs. Japan over those rocks sticking out of the Sea of Japan, Malaysia vs. East Timor over independance, India vs. Sri Lanka over independance, Canada vs. Denmark over Hans Island, which isn't large enough to even play a game of soccer on, the USA vs. Cuba over the right to be communist, North Korea vs. South Korea over ideology, etc.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:03:09 +0000, nestork
wrote in
Re OT Never in America?:

Well, by now everyone has heard that the Cypriot parliament has rejected
that idea and is now looking for another way to finance their bail out
plans.

But, if they'd gone ahead with it, I'd have said that would be the 2nd
extremely dangerous precedent that a government has set in my lifetime.

The first woulda been George Bush's "Let's build a coalition of the
willing to attack Iraq before they attack us" plan.

That, effectively
set a precedent saying that you could justify starting a war with
another country on the grounds that their intentions toward you are
hostile.

No, that strategy is as old as war itself. It's most infamous use in
the last centrury was Hitler's attack on Poland and Russia.

VinnyB wrote:

That, effectively
set a precedent saying that you could justify starting a war with
another country on the grounds that their intentions toward you are
hostile.

No, that strategy is as old as war itself. It's most infamous use in
the last centrury was Hitler's attack on Poland and Russia.

Agreed. Here's another example:

The Israeli Defense Force operates under four very specific strategic
doctrines*. One is the "First Strike" rule. That is, Israel will ALWAYS
attack first. The country does not have the luxury of absorbing a first blow
and retailiating.

--------
* The other three a
- Israel cannot trade territory for time (they don't have that much
territory to trade!). They will stand and fight, pouring everything they
have into the battle as quickly as they can.**
- The "Quick War" doctrine. Israel must achieve its objectives quickly,
before the super-powers get their **** together and intervene.
(I forget the other one)

===============
** As of today, there are about 13,000 "lifers" in the IDF (officers and
non-coms making the military their career). There are also about 100,000
conscripts doing their 2-3 year tour of duty. At most, therefore, the
peace-time strength of the IDF is something less than 120,000.

That number can be increased to 640,000 infantry and armor combatants,
deployed in combat, on three fronts, within 72 hours with the first
quarter-million coming on-line by this time tomorrow!

On Mar 20, 12:03*pm, nestork wrote:
[_2_ Wrote:

;3032750']
WARNING!
I just looked at this thread for the first time and clicked on the
reuters link.
Norton blocked it and came back saying it blocked an attack by
Malicious Rootkit Website 33

Well, by now everyone has heard that the Cypriot parliament has rejected
that idea and is now looking for another way to finance their bail out
plans.

But, if they'd gone ahead with it, I'd have said that would be the 2nd
extremely dangerous precedent that a government has set in my lifetime.

The first woulda been George Bush's "Let's build a coalition of the
willing to attack Iraq before they attack us" plan. *That, effectively
set a precedent saying that you could justify starting a war with
another country on the grounds that their intentions toward you are
hostile.

That indeed is enough justification for starting a war. But it
sure was not the justification for going to war with Iraq. Iraq
invaded Kuwait with no provocation whatever. A whole coalition
of countries went to war to drive Iraq out. One very important
part of the agreement that ended that war was Iraq agreeing to
full cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Iraq agreed to
account for all their WMDs which they had at time. They agreed
to open access for the UN inspectors and to destroy all their
WMDs and WMD programs. Iraq never complied with that
agreement. Even on the eve of the war, with 400,000 troops
ready to attack, in his last report to the UN, Hans Blix said they
still were not cooperating.

They were given every opportunity to do so and refused. More
than enough justification for military action.




*Unfortunately, I don't have enough fingers and toes to count
off all the hostile relationships that have existed for years on this
Good Earth... Argentina vs. Britain over the Falklands, Israel vs.
everyone else over the Palestinians, China vs. Tibet, India vs. Pakistan
over the Kashmir, Venezuela vs. Columbia, Turkey vs. Greece over Cyprus,
Russia vs. Chechnya over who knows what, China vs. Japan over those
rocks sticking out of the Sea of Japan, Malaysia vs. East Timor over
independance, India vs. Sri Lanka over independance, Canada vs. Denmark
over Hans Island, which isn't large enough to even play a game of soccer
on, the USA vs. Cuba over the right to be communist, North Korea vs.
South Korea over ideology, etc.

--
nestork

One essential difference is that now we have countries run by
unstable, total nut jobs that are rapidly developing WMDs that
will be able to directly hit major cities in the USA. Some of
those nut case ideologies, driven by religous fanaticism, have
demonstrated over and over that they are very willing to die
as long as they take as many innocents with them as possible.
You may be OK living with that threat, but most of us are not.

On Mar 21, 1:55*pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:03*pm, nestork wrote:









[_2_ Wrote:

;3032750']
WARNING!
I just looked at this thread for the first time and clicked on the
reuters link.
Norton blocked it and came back saying it blocked an attack by
Malicious Rootkit Website 33

Well, by now everyone has heard that the Cypriot parliament has rejected
that idea and is now looking for another way to finance their bail out
plans.

But, if they'd gone ahead with it, I'd have said that would be the 2nd
extremely dangerous precedent that a government has set in my lifetime.

The first woulda been George Bush's "Let's build a coalition of the
willing to attack Iraq before they attack us" plan. *That, effectively
set a precedent saying that you could justify starting a war with
another country on the grounds that their intentions toward you are
hostile.

That indeed is enough justification for starting a war. *But it
sure was not the justification for going to war with Iraq. *Iraq
invaded Kuwait with no provocation whatever. * A whole coalition
of countries went to war to drive Iraq out. *One very important

Kuwait was once part of Iraq.
And the war was illegal,hence they had to find some lying excuse. ie,
WMDs.
Bush and Bliar are war criminals.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:53:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote
in Re OT
Never in America?:

On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:04:38 AM UTC-4, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92G03I20130317

The news reports I heard were that the idea was rejected with prejudice.

Just news of it caused a run on the banks.

Will it happen here? Not a chance. Even just hinting at it will cause a total economic meltdown as people run on the banks to take out all their money.

In a police state anything is possible. All it takes is waking up one
morning to an "emergency" decree from the President. Remember the
wage/price freeze of the early 1970s?

I can't believe people like Rush are dumb enough to believe that it is even a possibility in the USA. There is not one American politician who would vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their money too.

The politicos will quietly exempt themselves, just like they do with
other onerous legislation, e.g. social security.

Federal, state and local taxes consume more that 55% of the GDP
http://taxfoundation.org/tax-topics/tax-burdens
and there is no end in sight.

Welcome to Amerika.

On Mar 20, 12:53*pm, wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:04:38 AM UTC-4, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...liament-idUSBR...

The news reports I heard were that the idea was rejected with prejudice.

Just news of it caused a run on the banks.

Will it happen here? Not a chance. Even just hinting at it will cause a total economic meltdown as people run on the banks to take out all their money.

I can't believe people like Rush are dumb enough to believe that it is even a possibility in the USA. There is not one American politician who would vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their money too.

They would move their money abroad, being forwarned,

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:53:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:04:38 AM UTC-4, harry wrote:
Government to take 10% of everyone's money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92G03I20130317

The news reports I heard were that the idea was rejected with prejudice.

Just news of it caused a run on the banks.

Will it happen here? Not a chance. Even just hinting at it will cause a total economic meltdown as people run on the banks to take out all their money.

I can't believe people like Rush are dumb enough to believe that it is even a possibility in the USA. There is not one American politician who would vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their money too.

What a naive little lefty.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:35:10 PM UTC-4, wrote:
What a naive little lefty.

Not in the least. You'd be up in arms over it. 1/2 the population of the country would be up in arms over it. There would be uncontrollable civil unrest, riots, maybe even full-on armed revolt. It'll get real messy, real quick, especially if it was done by an ILLEGAL "executive order" in the dead of night.

They would have a hard time justifying any sort of body count to their own people, let alone the rest of the world.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:35:10 PM UTC-4, wrote:
What a naive little lefty.

Not in the least. You'd be up in arms over it. 1/2 the population of the country would be up in arms over it. There would be uncontrollable civil unrest, riots, maybe even full-on armed revolt. It'll get real messy, real quick, especially if it was done by an ILLEGAL "executive order" in the dead of night.

Your naivete is showing. The current government doesn't care. If
you're too far left to notice, class warfare is their principle tool
and this would fit right in. You have heard the talk in leftist
(congresscritter) circles about seizing 401Ks and other retirement
accounts, right? This isn't any different.

They would have a hard time justifying any sort of body count to their own people, let alone the rest of the world.

LOL! You're funny!