Cypriot creditors: Maybe we can alter the deal

posted at 9:21 am on March 18, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Jazz noted yesterday that the EU bailout of Cyprus broke new ground in the European debt crisis — which should have every participant in the Western economy worried. As part of the bank rescue in the small island nation, the Cypriot government will seize a percentage of deposits to pay off the country’s steep debt.  As Cypriots started a run on their banks, creditors are now trying to head off a panic by tweaking the levy:

Cyprus and its prospective international lenders are considering altering brackets on a one-off deposit levy agreed to as part of a bailout deal reached Saturday that will see savers suffer losses in exchange for the country’s EUR10 billion bailout, an official with knowledge of the situation said Sunday.

The plan that is currently under consideration will leave the target revenue of the extraordinary levy unchanged at EUR5.8B but will seek to protect smaller depositors.

According to the official a new plan would see deposits up to EUR100,000 taking a loss of under 5%; of EUR100,000 to EUR500,000 under 10%; and over EUR500,000 of about 13%.

The original deal that Cyprus struck with its euro-zone peers and the troika of the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund is to impose a one-off levy of 6.75% to all deposits up to EUR100,000 and of 9.9% to those above.

First, I doubt this will make Cypriot depositors change their minds about the deal and their strategy to handle it.  Regardless of whether it’s 6.75% or 5%, any money left in those accounts will be less than if depositors stick cash in their mattresses.  Even if they can’t get all of their money out, they can at least get some of it out, and the wealthier depositors will probably have more resources for transfers.  All of that means that (a) the run on banks will continue, and (b) the EU isn’t going to get its €5.8 billion from the confiscation.

Second, this strategy seems bizarre for a plan to keep the Cypriot economy stable — and that of the greater EU.  The problem in Europe isn’t too many deposits — it’s too much debt.  Banks need their liquidity to ride out the crisis in the long term, and besides, this looks very much like punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.  It will hammer older people more, creating more pressure on social-welfare programs to fill the gap, and those programs are the big long-term problem in the EU debt crisis as it is.

As Europeans look at this precedent being set, they should be asking themselves this question, especially in Rome, Madrid, and Lisbon: are we next? Don’t be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can’t solve their spending problems.  They may start altering the deal before it arrives on their doorstep.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I think it is clear that what the EU is doing is criminal…but how does it fundamentally differ then the intentional inflation of the currency the Obama administration has engaged in?

In Cyprus they take 10% of your bank deposit…once.

In America, Obama reduces the value of your savings of almost any sort by about 10% (the real inflation rate) per year.

Which is worse?

18-1 on March 18, 2013 at 9:23 AM

I bet a lot of that pulled money will be used to buy illegal guns & ammo…..

Let the revolution begin!!!!

redguy on March 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Just how many US liberals do you suppose are following this story and thinking that state seizure of deposits sounds like a pretty darned good idea.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM

A very poorly thought out policy that has sent tremors through the world markets. They’re lucky they did not trigger a bank run throughout Europe.

TouchdownBuddha on March 18, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Exactly what I’ve been saying. Anyone with an active brain cell will yank their money or convert it. If one’s deposit is no longer secure, and they aren’t, it’s only a matter of time before the economic system collapses.

Why else would the Zero regime need the authority granted in Obamacare to gain access to ALL OF OUR FINANCIAL RECORDS if they had no intention of stealing our assets?

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Just how many US liberals do you suppose are following this story and thinking that state seizure of deposits sounds like a pretty darned good idea.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM

A quote from the latest Market Ticker:

Oh, and if you’re not, this was just said on CNBC:

“This (ed: what Cyprus did) open up enormous possibilities for the Administration.”

Capiche?

Archivarix on March 18, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Yow! and the market reacts by dropping 100+ right out of the gate.

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Just how many US liberals do you suppose are following this story and thinking that state seizure of deposits sounds like a pretty darned good idea.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM

All of them.

Washington Nearsider on March 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

EEC bureaucrats tarred, feathered and running fearfully out of Brussells restaurants and bars, with angry Cypriots in close pursuit, might do more for economic stability at this point than stealing money from savers.

MTF on March 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Capiche?

Archivarix on March 18, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Yeah let the Satan-in-a-hoodie go ahead and propose that. The riots would start almost immediately.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Why aren’t they taking 10% of every politican’s income/savings/retirement and property vaules? The politicans are the ones who destroyed it.

You know the Democrats are looking at this and thinking “Nice idea. We could work with this.”

At some point, if we continue on our present course… they are going to go after retirements, savings and property. And I guess RINO’s and people like Boehner will just love it. I can see him saying now “Government retirement siezures are the law of the land. Republicans need to fall in line”

JellyToast on March 18, 2013 at 9:36 AM

All of them.

Washington Nearsider on March 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Probably. LOL

What’s next a “charm campaign” where they advocate stealing from those who have been thrifty and saved. What will be the rationale?

For the children?
The right thing to do?
To save Social Security and Medicare?
To protect the most vulnerable among us? (i.e. the parasite class)

Or are they just going to do it and really not care what the public thinks.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Did anyone notice the ol’ switcheroo here?

First, tell everyone they’re losing their money in a government cash grab. Let the firestorm develop in the streets, and just before it ignites, tell the street warriors that they don’t have to pay, just the rich folks do.

“yeah….make the rich pay just a little bit more”

Sound familiar?

BobMbx on March 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM

At some point, if we continue on our present course… they are going to go after retirements, savings and property. And I guess RINO’s and people like Boehner will just love it. I can see him saying now “Government retirement siezures are the law of the land. Republicans need to fall in line”

JellyToast on March 18, 2013 at 9:36 AM

They already have a confiscation tax on 401ks – 30% penalty for earlier withdrawal. In a twisted way, the gov’t would benefit from a run on 401k’s, they’ed get 30% of it.

WisRich on March 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Darth Vader’s lawn looks nice.
Does he use MiracleGro or TurfBuilder?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 18, 2013 at 9:41 AM

I see a bad moon rising.

docflash on March 18, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Sorry, 10% penalty on 401ks, not 30%

WisRich on March 18, 2013 at 9:42 AM

The end of property rights in Europe:

Lesson 1: Greece; Lesson 2: Cyprus – Pay Attention

In Zero Hedge on 03/18/2013 – 08:18

Deposit Insurance at a bank, any bank in Europe, is now meaningless. A bond indenture, any clause, any paragraph, any promise or assurance; now meaningless. The notion of private property, land, cash, house; now meaningless. The European Union will take what they want as they deem it necessary and the IMF will follow along. The question has been asked, during the last few days, why the bond holders of Cyprus were not tagged along with the bank deposits. We can answer the question. Virtually all of the Cyprus sovereign debt is governed under British law and so the EU did not pursue this course. Greece came first. Lesson one and “shame on you.” Cyprus comes second and now “shame on me.” What will come next?

petefrt on March 18, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Or are they just going to do it and really not care what the public thinks.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I think the pitch will be made like this:

There are those in our country who have saved, and have built a nest egg. To those people, I say ‘congratulations.’ You have made the most of the life of privilege you were granted by luck and the randomness of birth.

Studies show that those who have a tendency to save are better educated than those who do not. Unfortunately, education has become prohibitively expensive, and many in our nation have not had the means, the education or the opportunity to establish any sort of savings.

In order to level the playing field, we will start a rainy-day fund for each of our nation’s non-savers. They deserve the same rights and benefits as those of us who were able to afford an education.

— B. Obama, some point in the near future.

Washington Nearsider on March 18, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Banks need their liquidity to ride out the crisis in the long term, and besides, this looks very much like punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

I’m not entirely sure I would look on many of those Cypriots as “innocent”. Europeans don’t mind their socialist, nanny-state spending governments. They just don’t want to pay for it themselves.

Bitter Clinger on March 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Just how many US liberals do you suppose are following this story and thinking that state seizure of deposits sounds like a pretty darned good idea.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Our liberals will learn from the mistakes in attempting to tax funds that can easily be drawn out. Which is where this comes in:

They already have a confiscation tax on 401ks – 30% penalty for earlier withdrawal. In a twisted way, the gov’t would benefit from a run on 401k’s, they’ed get 30% of it.
WisRich on March 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM

It is not difficult to put 2 and 2 together. If they tax our 401ks and IRAs less than the withdrawal penalty, logic would dictate that you leave your money in there to be confiscated.

weaselyone on March 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM

EEC bureaucrats tarred, feathered and running fearfully out of Brussells restaurants and bars, with angry Cypriots in close pursuit, might do more for economic stability at this point than stealing money from savers.

It is interesting to look at this in a historical context.

Traditionally rulers could only raise taxes so much before the people took up arms, and they generally had to justify why they were doing it – paying for a new palace or more flunkies often wouldn’t cut it.

“Democracy” of the modern sort is designed to give legitimacy to taking things away from 49% of the population as long as the other 51% voted for it. This is absurd, but with the takers’ control of the media it never gets spelled out quite like that does it?

Of course European democracy is a joke – the system is designed so that the winners will always be statist technocrats no matter which party they are from – a direction we’ve been rapidly moving in as well if you look at the last election.

18-1 on March 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM

In Cyprus they take 10% of your bank deposit…once.

In America, Obama reduces the value of your savings of almost any sort by about 10% (the real inflation rate) per year.

Which is worse?

18-1 on March 18, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Bingo. We won’t seize it. We just reduce its purchasing power by creating enough new money to cause inflation.

petefrt on March 18, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Sort of get the impression the concept of the EU was not that hot of an idea to begin with.

pilamaye on March 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Darth Vader’s lawn looks nice.
Does he use MiracleGro or TurfBuilder?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 18, 2013 at 9:41 AM

He uses the force.

bgibbs1000 on March 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM

They say this seizure is a one-time thing. It’ll also happen once the next time, then one the next after that, an so one.

I’m curious now see what trial balloons the Administration might send up on a similar idea. After all, people don’t need all those savings, or to manage their own retirement accounts, do they? What about those who can’t afford such ‘luxuries’?

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Oh, and if you’re not, this was just said on CNBC:

“This (ed: what Cyprus did) open up enormous possibilities for the Administration.”

Capiche?

Archivarix on March 18, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Well sure, if you look at an armed revolt throughout the nation as one of those possibilities.

Bishop on March 18, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Oh, and if you’re not, this was just said on CNBC:

“This (ed: what Cyprus did) open up enormous possibilities for the Administration.”

Capiche?

Archivarix on March 18, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Granted Obama doesn’t exactly care about the Constitution, but the one thing that the US has that the EU doesn’t is the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause. Even under eminent domain, the government has to pay just compensation. So, there is some prohibition against an outright taking. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court would uphold precedent and not cave making the Takings Clause meaningless.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM

…I like the new picture of JugEars!

KOOLAID2 on March 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Even under eminent domain, the government has to pay just compensation. So, there is some prohibition against an outright taking. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court would uphold precedent and not cave making the Takings Clause meaningless.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I believe the Cypriots will receive shares in the banks their money is being stolen from.

The same idea has been floated here a few times already, with the govt taking your cash from IRAs and other deposit accounts, and handing you savings bonds or other debt instruments in exchange.

BobMbx on March 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM

My simple advise to anyone that still has money in Europe:

GET OUT! GET OUT! GET OUT OF THERE!!

BigGator5 on March 18, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Granted Obama doesn’t exactly care about the Constitution, but the one thing that the US has that the EU doesn’t is the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause. Even under eminent domain, the government has to pay just compensation. So, there is some prohibition against an outright taking. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court would uphold precedent and not cave making the Takings Clause meaningless.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM

The takings clause is already meaningless. We have direct personal income taxation via the sixteenth amendment, don’t we?

It’s funny. I was discussing The Great Cypriot Bank Robbery (as I’ve come to call this shameful debacle) with someone of my parents’ generation, and her first instinct was to ask, “How can the government just take money like that?” Well, my parents and their parents never knew an America where government did not take money without due process. And in fact, as of February 2013, it’s been exactly 100 years that the government has been doing so. First came the income tax, then social security taxation, and then medicare taxation. And if you don’t? It’s the modern debtor’s prison.

We’ll be taking haircuts here in America. Only when we do, I have a feeling it will be to the tune of a lot more than 10%.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Even under eminent domain, the government has to pay just compensation. So, there is some prohibition against an outright taking. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court would uphold precedent and not cave making the Takings Clause meaningless.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Unless SCOTUS rules it a tax, if such a seizure happened here in America.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM

In Cyprus they take 10% of your bank deposit…once.

In America, Obama reduces the value of your savings of almost any sort by about 10% (the real inflation rate) per year.

Which is worse?

18-1 on March 18, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Bingo. We won’t seize it. We just reduce its purchasing power by creating enough new money to cause inflation.

petefrt on March 18, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Ah, but at some point we may have both.

ElectricPhase on March 18, 2013 at 10:11 AM

As Europeans Americans look at this precedent being set, they should be asking themselves this question, especially in Rome, Madrid, and Lisbon: are we next?

FTFY!

…Even under eminent domain, the government has to pay just compensation. So, there is some prohibition against an outright taking.
Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM

You wanna bet your savings on that if you’re old, needing that money? With O at the helm? I’m going to say the bank of Sealy just got popular real quick everywhere.

SkinnerVic on March 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM

I’m going to say the bank of Sealy just got popular real quick everywhere.

SkinnerVic on March 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM

In Cyprus, Bank of Sealy already has a better return than any national bank there. ;)

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I believe the Cypriots will receive shares in the banks their money is being stolen from.

The same idea has been floated here a few times already, with the govt taking your cash from IRAs and other deposit accounts, and handing you savings bonds or other debt instruments in exchange.

BobMbx on March 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM

I understand what has been floated here, but Obama cannot do it on his own. In the midst of the Korean War, steelworkers had been engaged in numerous strikes shutting down steel plants and affecting the production of war materiel. Truman, as Commander in Chief and by Executive Order, nationalised the steel mills. The Supreme Court overturned the EO and said that it was a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments and further held that he didn’t have authority from Congress. The case was Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

I was addressing the specific point of Cyprus opening up “enormous possibilities for the Administration.” For the administration to attempt something along these lines, it will need Congress’ authority.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

I think the pitch will be made like this:

Washington Nearsider on March 18, 2013 at 9:44 AM

The scary part is that we are talking about the state seizure of property and your pitch is an entirely plausible scenerio. Those who’ve worked hard and saved to be punished so that some greedy parasite doesn’t have their benefits cut.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 10:15 AM

The difference between a one-time taking and yearly,ongoing sales of treasury bonds for money that doesn’t exist us that at least in the first instance they’ve gone to the trouble of assigning the burden of the debt. In the latter the hammer will fall just as heavily, but the due date is uncertain and everyone can pretend that it will be paid by someone else.

I like our way soooo much better.

TexasDan on March 18, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I was addressing the specific point of Cyprus opening up “enormous possibilities for the Administration.” For the administration to attempt something along these lines, it will need Congress’ authority.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Really? Can you tell me when Obama has ever needed Congress’ authority to do something tyrannical? He ignores Congress when he has to, and drags Congress along with him when he can. Sorry dude, but you’re terribly naive to hold up a Korean War-era SC ruling as an example of why we shouldn’t worry about The Great Cypriot Bank Robbery.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM

You wanna bet your savings on that if you’re old, needing that money? With O at the helm? I’m going to say the bank of Sealy just got popular real quick everywhere.

SkinnerVic on March 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM

No. I said “Let’s hope that the Supreme Court would uphold precedent and not cave making the Takings Clause meaningless.”

As for the EU, I have been warning about precisely this type of action by the tyrannical, authoritarian apparatchiks in Brussels for years and have been called a eurosceptic for it, which is almost on par with being called a Holocaust denier.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Really? Can you tell me when Obama has ever needed Congress’ authority to do something tyrannical? He ignores Congress when he has to, and drags Congress along with him when he can. Sorry dude, but you’re terribly naive to hold up a Korean War-era SC ruling as an example of why we shouldn’t worry about The Great Cypriot Bank Robbery.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Reading comprehension is important. I didn’t say that it would prevent him. I said that I would hope that the Supreme Court would uphold precedent.

Where have I said that you shouldn’t worry about what is happening in Cyprus? All that I have said is that the US has something that the EU doesn’t: The Fifth Amendment. Whether the Fifth Amendment still stands for anything is a different story.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM

When do the Democracts adopt this policy?

Oil Can on March 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Just how many US liberals do you suppose are following this story and thinking that state seizure of deposits sounds like a pretty darned good idea.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM

They’ll seize the 401(k)s first before looting general deposits.

Yeah let the Satan-in-a-hoodie go ahead and propose that. The riots would start almost immediately.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

There won’t be any riots until the EBT cards are turned off. We have not seen any regime change resulting from what’s happened in Greece (despite something like 30% unemployment) and there have been no riots in Cyprus. I have come to the conclusion that there will be no overthrow of any of these governments until their countries have totally collapsed and the government benefits stop.

This includes the USA.

Doomberg on March 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Unless SCOTUS rules it a tax, if such a seizure happened here in America.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM

A tax cannot be instituted through an Executive Order.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Reading comprehension is important. I didn’t say that it would prevent him. I said that I would hope that the Supreme Court would uphold precedent.

Where have I said that you shouldn’t worry about what is happening in Cyprus? All that I have said is that the US has something that the EU doesn’t: The Fifth Amendment. Whether the Fifth Amendment still stands for anything is a different story.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Reading comprehension is important. You hope for something that probably won’t happen. I understand the desire to be optimistic, but it benefits no one to look at ugly truths through rose-colored glasses.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Unless SCOTUS rules it a tax, if such a seizure happened here in America.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM

A tax cannot be instituted through an Executive Order.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Obama would have to have some authorisation from Congress for it to become a tax. If Obama could have made Obamacare a tax on his own, he wouldn’t have gone through Congress.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Our entire Modern existence is based upon trust. Especially trust in banks and banking laws. This act kicks away the the support for that trust in one fell swoop. If they wanted to start a conflagration I don’t think they could have picked a better move.

JimK on March 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Reading comprehension is important. You hope for something that probably won’t happen. I understand the desire to be optimistic, but it benefits no one to look at ugly truths through rose-colored glasses.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM

IOW, you believe we are living in a dictatorship and the constitution is meaningless so we should just stop talking about it. OK. Gotcha.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM

IOW, you believe we are living in a dictatorship and the constitution is meaningless so we should just stop talking about it. OK. Gotcha.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Beat that straw man, RWM! Talking about the constitution is vital. Pretending that it protects us from people that ignore it? Not so much. The constitution needs to be talked about precisely because it won’t protect us from what’s to come.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM

A tax cannot be instituted through an Executive Order.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM

That’s true, but it would be a long fight to stop Obama if he does it anyway. I can foresee the Democrats coming up with a plan like this, a ‘one-time emergency tax’. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they’re already preparing the package and its presentation. They’ll likely use the “We’re all in this crisis together” argument, and God knows what else. Then we have a new argument, between the savers and non-savers. The MSM will be all for it, after they move their monies to untouchable offshore accounts.

Or am I seeming just a little too cynical here? :-)

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM

…am I seeming just a little too cynical here? :-)

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM

IMO there is no such thing as too cynical. I place the “let’s hope the constitution will prevent it from happening here” crowd on equal philosophical footing with the “it will never happen here” bunch: painfully naive.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Beat that straw man, RWM! Talking about the constitution is vital. Pretending that it protects us from people that ignore it? Not so much. The constitution needs to be talked about precisely because it won’t protect us from what’s to come.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM

It’s not a strawman. I talk about the Constitution and say that I hope that the Supreme Court would uphold precedent and all of you dump on me and call me naive.

If the Constitution will not protect us from what’s to come, then it is already meaningless and we should stop talking about it.

I don’t believe that…or, I should say, I am not so defeatist. I will continue to use the Constitution as a weapon until I am defeated.

You can assume that the Constitution will not protect you, but, in doing so, you are already admitting defeat.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM

IMO there is no such thing as too cynical. I place the “let’s hope the constitution will prevent it from happening here” crowd on equal philosophical footing with the “it will never happen here” bunch: painfully naive.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:27 AM

RWM is right –she usually is about things — when she says Obama can’t legally impose a tax on his own. I expect the courts would shoot down the plan like they did the recess appointments scandal, which Obama is ignoring, BTW. But I can foresee Congressional Dems proposing such a tax plan and a lot of RINOs backing it. Or maybe as far down the scale as Bloomberg getting the NYC Council to approve a tax on savings for accounts held in NYC.

Whoever in Europe came up with the plan of legalized theft would probably get a Hero of the Soviet Union medal if the USSR still existed.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:32 AM

I guess my previous attempt to post this did not work.

Banking Chief Calls For 15% Looting of Italians’ Savings

infowars DOT com/banking-chief-calls-for-15-looting-of-italians-savings/

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM

I don’t believe that…or, I should say, I am not so defeatist. I will continue to use the Constitution as a weapon until I am defeated.

You can assume that the Constitution will not protect you, but, in doing so, you are already admitting defeat.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Like I said, bub, painfully naive. The constitution is not a “weapon” nor was it ever intended to be used as such. It is a framework for government that outlines which powers the states have voluntarily surrendered to a central federal government so that we’re not a confederation of 50 separate cold warring nation-states. We abandoned that framework a century ago for something hedonistic, tyrannical, and far less sustainable.

You’d better learn to use an actual weapon if you actually intend to defend yourself from G-thugs. They won’t be too impressed with you waving around your pocket constitution in their faces.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM

You can assume that the Constitution will not protect you, but, in doing so, you are already admitting defeat.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM

You make great points and I am not slamming you, nor am I admitting defeat. The constitution does not protect us. We must protect it.

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM

It is not difficult to put 2 and 2 together. If they tax our 401ks and IRAs less than the withdrawal penalty, logic would dictate that you leave your money in there to be confiscated.

weaselyone on March 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Your logic fails.

The penalty (10%, not 30%) is on early withdrawal, before retirement. People in 401k’s and IRA’s know this, and it’s part of the deal. Most people don’t get hit with it, because they don’t ‘early withdraw’.

If the feds step in and take something from it that is *not* part of the deal, that’s very, very different. Logic would dictate that they will find the reaction… unpleasant.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM

… and the 10% penalty is paid via yearly tax forms; you can withdraw 100%, it’s then up to you to claim it on your yearly taxes. Some will, perhaps – others will not.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM

RWM is right –she usually is about things — when she says Obama can’t legally impose a tax on his own.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:32 AM

So? How will that stop him? He’ll do it, a court will rule against him, and he’ll ignroe the court order! He’s done it before! Yes, RWM is right about what Obama can and can’t legally do, but that’s where I facepalm! Obama doesn’t give a greasy brown shit about the legality of his actions, and if a court rules against him, who is left to enforce the law that Obama’s executive branch refuses to enforce?!

For a perfect example of what I’m talking about, look at what happened in The Gulf. Obama singlehandedly destroyed an industry (deep-water oil drilling), was court ordered not to, and did it anyway. And to my knowledge, aside from a contempt-of-court ruling that has had no practical effect on the day-to-day operations of the executive branch, Obama and his cabinet have suffered no consequences at all.

This is what we’re dealing with, folks. An administration that, God willing, will be gone in 2017, but in the meantime, has nothing left to lose. And there is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Like I said, bub, painfully naive. The constitution is not a “weapon” nor was it ever intended to be used as such. It is a framework for government that outlines which powers the states have voluntarily surrendered to a central federal government so that we’re not a confederation of 50 separate cold warring nation-states. We abandoned that framework a century ago for something hedonistic, tyrannical, and far less sustainable.

You’d better learn to use an actual weapon if you actually intend to defend yourself from G-thugs. They won’t be too impressed with you waving around your pocket constitution in their faces.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I’m not a bub and I know how to use weapons, including the law. I suggest that you learn how to use more than just guns, too. You have been allowing the Left to use the Constitution and the law as a weapon for decades. I make a humble suggestion: Learn how to use the same as weapons against them, too. They work.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM

A tax cannot be instituted through an Executive Order.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM

No, but taxes fines and seizures designating lands as part of a wildlife refuge are perfectly legal under Executive jurisdiction, without even an Order issued…

(*cough* EPA *cough*)

dominigan on March 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM

You make great points and I am not slamming you, nor am I admitting defeat. The constitution does not protect us. We must protect it.

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Thank you, but the Constitution does protect you and, yes, we must protect it.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I’m not a bub and I know how to use weapons, including the law. I suggest that you learn how to use more than just guns, too. You have been allowing the Left to use the Constitution and the law as a weapon for decades. I make a humble suggestion: Learn how to use the same as weapons against them, too. They work.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Really? How have they been working since 1913? I’m sorry to have to say this, but you really have no clue what we’re up against, do you?

The constitution doesn’t protect us. We must protect it. We have already failed in that, as we allow politicians to ignore and even flaunt their oaths of office. The time to depend on a piece of paper for the soundness of our government is past. The soundness of our government is already gone.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Thank you, but the Constitution does protect you and, yes, we must protect it.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Not a bub, huh? A woman?

Repeal the 19th!

/KABOOM

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:45 AM

IOW, you believe we are living in a dictatorship and the constitution is meaningless so we should just stop talking about it. OK. Gotcha.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Hmmm, the only change I would make there is that I’d suggest we need to keep talking about it. It’s the core of our objection to where we have found ourselves – in an open tyranny (on its way to full dictatorship), and the Constitution has largely been rendered meaningless from a practical standpoing.

But we musn’t stop talking about it – it must be the centerpiece of our push to reverse things to where it is *not* meaningless.

I’ve not accepted defeat – I believe I’m accepting where we are, and that means that the fighting isn’t over yet – but it’s about to change dramatically, I think. Not hoping for it, just pragmatically looking and thinking that we’ve crossed the Rubicon at this point and can’t get back from here. We had time to take corrective action, but that’s gone now.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 10:45 AM

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM

While Obama is a serious threat to our liberty, I’m more concerned about Congress. Obama will hopefully be gone in 2016, but those Dem senators re-elected in 2014 will still be there. The Pubs could also easily lose the House next time or in 2016. Congress is my biggest concern when it comes to theft of our liberty, money, jobs, etc. And for trampling on the Constitution.

I have a bad feeling that raiding private savings accounts and IRAs is an idea that’s going to be argued about even after Washington gets its way and implements it. It’ll be a one-time thing, until the next time. then the next, then…

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

One-time tax? Yeah. Anyone here who has been through the “one time” special property tax levy or the “temporary” sales tax hike knows that “one time” means “from now on.”

JoseQuinones on March 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

The trouble is the choice for Cyprus account holders is either give up 7 to 10% of your holdings or let the bank go under and lose it all. That’s what they are looking at. This is what happens when you can’t kick the can any farther down the road. And even this is a short term fix. In about a year they will be faced with an even worse scenario.

tommyboy on March 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM

RWM is right –she usually is about things — when she says Obama can’t legally impose a tax on his own.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:32 AM

I think there are some GM shareholders who would like to have a talk with you and RWM about your base mis-understanding. A tax is payment for services, via political contract. We’ve already seen the Administration dissolve contracts with impunity.

You still assume this Administration will play by the rules, when they have already demonstrated that they can willfully break hundreds of years of contract law and history without penalty.

dominigan on March 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Thank you, but the Constitution does protect you and, yes, we must protect it.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM

How exactly does it protect me proactively, which I think is the central issue. The President had no authorization to give guns to Mexican drug cartels. His ban on offshore drilling was unconstitutional and even after it was repealed by a federal Judge, Obama went ahead and issued another one.

The constitution guarantees redress, which as we have repeatedly seen never makes people whole after the government destroys their lives.

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM

While Obama is a serious threat to our liberty, I’m more concerned about Congress. Obama will hopefully be gone in 2016, but those Dem senators re-elected in 2014 will still be there. The Pubs could also easily lose the House next time or in 2016. Congress is my biggest concern when it comes to theft of our liberty, money, jobs, etc. And for trampling on the Constitution.

I have a bad feeling that raiding private savings accounts and IRAs is an idea that’s going to be argued about even after Washington gets its way and implements it. It’ll be a one-time thing, until the next time. then the next, then…

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Obama has shown a willingness to ignore congress when he has to, and drag Congress along when he can (e.g. Obamacare). The effects of his dictatorship will be felt long after he leaves office, which is why I believe he is the greater threat now.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM

dominigan on March 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Yes, but there was some movement from the Court recently in the direction of property owners’ rights in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v U.S., an 8-0 decision written by Ginsburg.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM

One-time tax? Yeah. Anyone here who has been through the “one time” special property tax levy or the “temporary” sales tax hike knows that “one time” means “from now on.”

JoseQuinones on March 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

FDR promised our income tax was temporary and voluntary. John Kerry even used the term voluntary a couple times.

Does anyone see anything temporary or voluntary about it?

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Yes, but there was some movement from the Court recently in the direction of property owners’ rights in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v U.S., an 8-0 decision written by Ginsburg.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Great. Another court ruling for Obama to ignore. You don’t really think that’s going to make one whit of practical difference, do you?

I bet you’re a woman and a college graduate, right? I mean, how could you possibly be so idealistic with the nation going to hell in a handbasket around you?

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:50 AM

You still assume this Administration will play by the rules, when they have already demonstrated that they can willfully break hundreds of years of contract law and history without penalty.

dominigan on March 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I know it won’t, but there are mechanisms in place to stop Obama. Then it becomes a question of enough people out there willing to do it.

I’m of the view a plan here like for Cypress will come from Congress first, maybe at Obama’s urging either through trial balloons or behind closed doors. Congress is what worries me, because many of those people will remain even after Obama is gone.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM

How does any law protect you proactively? Do drunk driving laws protect you from drunk drivers? No. Do gun-free zones protect people from maniacs with guns? No.

A gun is not going to protect you from the government seizing your 401K. It will be redress and the Takings Clause that might make you whole once again.

That’s the point.

Obama can attempt to seize bank accounts through an EO, but I think he would find himself slapped down in Court with an attending order issued that the financial institutions not turn over the money. Yes, there would very likely be immediate injunctions issued following such a proclamation by a President of the United States.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Great. Another court ruling for Obama to ignore. You don’t really think that’s going to make one whit of practical difference, do you?

I bet you’re a woman and a college graduate, right? I mean, how could you possibly be so idealistic with the nation going to hell in a handbasket around you?

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Obama can ignore it, but financial institutions will not ignore orders from a court.

Yes, I am a woman and an attorney. Idealistic? Me? LOL. I became an American because my country was going to hell in a handbasket.

But, you continue on with beating your chest and wishing for the days that you could drag women back to your cave by the hair, MCP.

We’ve established that brains aren’t your forte so, let me guess, you are not even young, so brawn has pretty much been supplanted by manboobs and an extra-large remote control. YeeHah!

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The effects of his dictatorship will be felt long after he leaves office, which is why I believe he is the greater threat now.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM

So, you do believe we are living in a dictatorship, eh?

Who is Alex Jones having on the show today?

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:59 AM

manboobs and an extra-large remote control. YeeHah!

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

EYE BLEACH! EYE BLEACH!

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 10:59 AM

bluegill on March 18, 2013

…I’m doing “THE bluegill“!…putting the same thing on every thread!
.
.
.

…cracked record…cracked head!

KOOLAID2 on March 18, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Obama can attempt to seize bank accounts through an EO

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:54 AM

No he can’t an Executive Order is not a royal fiat. There would have to be some mechanism where some agency or department of the Executive Branch could seize privately held assets and I just don’t see how even Satan-in-a-hoodie could get away with that one.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

So, you do believe we are living in a dictatorship, eh?

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The better question is: Do you believe we are not living in a dicatatorship?

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Good points.

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

We’ve established that brains aren’t your forte so, let me guess, you are not even young, so brawn has pretty much been supplanted by manboobs and an extra-large remote control. YeeHah!

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

What do you call “young?” Is 34 young? I lived through the Reagan years, but most of what I remember about them comes from history textbooks and revisionist GOP ramblings.

As for the supposed moobs and extra-large remote, I can send you a picture of my chest next to the universal remote I got from my cable company and you can judge for yourself if you’re so damn smart.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM

So, you do believe we are living in a dictatorship, eh?

Who is Alex Jones having on the show today?

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Keep waving that pocket constitution in the G-thugs’ faces. It will save you in your time of need.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM

No he can’t an Executive Order is not a royal fiat. There would have to be some mechanism where some agency or department of the Executive Branch could seize privately held assets and I just don’t see how even Satan-in-a-hoodie could get away with that one.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

It’ll never happen here?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Excuse me…

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 11:05 AM

My thoughts:

As is coming in America, the currency will be called in and a new currency will be issued in exchange(worth a lot less of course) with felonies for use of the old currency.

This will force the cash drawn from the obamabanks out of hiding and give the big gov a handy new infusion of cash to pay off their crazed spend and print cycle. Add to that the drip drip drip of the death panel taxes on estates and they are home free–but no American will be.

I trust that nothing is too low for these scoundrels.

Don L on March 18, 2013 at 11:05 AM

There would have to be some mechanism where some agency or department of the Executive Branch could seize privately held assets and I just don’t see how even Satan-in-a-hoodie could get away with that one.

And you would have said the same thing if anyone dared to mention that the IRS would be enforcing your healthcare some day too.

Don L on March 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM

No he can’t an Executive Order is not a royal fiat. There would have to be some mechanism where some agency or department of the Executive Branch could seize privately held assets and I just don’t see how even Satan-in-a-hoodie could get away with that one.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I know that it is not a royal fiat. Read above. I make the same point. By the way, there would have to be more than “some mechanism” in this case. If a Commander in Chief cannot seize steel mills during a war when strikes have had a detrimental impact on the production of war materiel without authorisation from Congress and/or just compensation to the property owners, then a President cannot seize bank accounts via Executive Order, especially in a time when there is no existential crisis. He would need authority from Congress and, even then, it might not be constitutional.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM

He would need authority from Congress and, even then, it might not be constitutional.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Repeat after me, kids:

Obama is not constrained by the constitution.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM

What do you call “young?” Is 34 young? I lived through the Reagan years, but most of what I remember about them comes from history textbooks and revisionist GOP ramblings.

As for the supposed moobs and extra-large remote, I can send you a picture of my chest next to the universal remote I got from my cable company and you can judge for yourself if you’re so damn smart.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Keep banging those drums and that chest, baby. I lived through the Blair-Brown years so I KNOW “hell in a handbasket.”

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM

If I were a vendor in Cyprus I wouldn’t be taking any checks. Cash or gold only.

tommyboy on March 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM

The better question is: Do you believe we are not living in a dicatatorship?

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

No. You guys don’t know how good you have it compared to EU members.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM

It’ll never happen here?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Excuse me…

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 11:05 AM

I never said it couldn’t happen here. Just that it wouldn’t be by way of an Executive Order. Mechanically it would be tough and Satan-in-a-hoodie would want some top cover on this to deflect blame since this isn’t giving illegals de facto amnesty or contraception to whores in law school.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Keep waving that pocket constitution in the G-thugs’ faces. It will save you in your time of need.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I think RWM is correct. The only concern I have is some lurking passage in a bill I have not read.

In my six pages of notes on Obamacare I found nothing giving HHS the authority, nor are they the most likely candidate. It would need to be the Treasury or The Fed Banking unit.

If they tried this here there would be instant injunctions. In the current situation I think they would get away with it.

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM

No. You guys don’t know how good you have it compared to EU members.

Resist We Much on March 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Then you’d be wrong. Just because it is a more benign dictatorship doesn’t mean that the rat-eared Kenyan isn’t of the same mold as Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM

If I were a vendor in Cyprus I wouldn’t be taking any checks. Cash or gold only.

tommyboy on March 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Precious stones might be better or other things that are easily negotiable…

dogsoldier on March 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2