Banking Chief Calls For 15% Looting of Savings

[popcorn]

Banking Chief Calls For 15% Looting of Italians’ Savings



News that the International Monetary Fund initially demanded to loot a shocking 40% of savings from the private bank accounts of Cypriots underscores how residents of the Mediterranean country could be the latest victims of the infamous “IMF riot,” as the chief economist of the German Commerzbank calls for Italians to be similarly plundered for 15% of their savings.

The government of Cyprus is set to vote tomorrow on enforcing a “tax,” which in reality is nothing less than a confiscation of private wealth, that would hit savers with between 100,000 to 500,000 euros with a levy of 9.9%. Those with over half a million euros will face an even higher rate of 15%.

read more:
www.infowars.com/banking-chief-calls-for-15-looting-of-italians-savings/

[baydoll]

Good Morning, Popcorn!

Wow this is totally nuts!!! The whole world is coming apart at the seams! Could this be a little taste of things to come for us here in the US?

Here's another article:

Why the Cyprus Bail In Is a Bigger Deal Than You Think

By Henry Blodget |

You can be forgiven for thinking that you don't need to give a hoot about what's going on in Cyprus.

After all, it's just a little island somewhere in the Mediterranean.

But what's going on in Cyprus could actually matter — not just to the rest of Europe, but to the rest of the world.

Here's the short version of what's happening:

Some of Cyprus's banks, like many banks in Europe, are bankrupt.

Cyprus went to the eurozone to get a bailout, the same way Ireland, Greece, and other European countries have.

The eurozone powers-that-be (mainly Germany) gave Cyprus a bailout and insisted that the depositors in Cyprus's banks pay part of the tab — a startling condition that has never before been imposed on any major banking system since the start of the global financial crisis in 2008.

The deal did not touch the bondholders. Why the depositors? These are folks who had their money in the banks for safe-keeping.

When Cyprus's banks reopen on Tuesday morning, every depositor will have some of his or her money seized. The current plan is that accounts under 100,000 euros will have 6.75% of the funds seized. Accounts over 100,000 euros will have 9.9% seized. And then the eurozone's emergency lending facility and the International Monetary Fund will inject 10 billion euros into the banks to allow them to keep operating.

Cyprus's government tried to explain this deal by observing that it was better than the alternative: Immediate bankruptcy and closure of the major banks. In that scenario, depositors would lose a lot more money. Businesses would go bankrupt. And tens of thousands of people would be instantly thrown out of work.

Not surprisingly, news that deposits in Cyprus's banks would be seized triggered an immediate run on the banks.

Depositors rushed to ATMs and tried to withdraw their money before it could be seized.

But the ATMs weren't working. And the government has now made it impossible to transfer money out of the country.

So, assuming Cyprus's government approves the deal (still pending--with the vote now postponed until Wednesday), depositors will have some of their money seized.

Now, half of these depositors are said to be Russian oligarchs and other non-residents. And unless you happen to have the misfortune of having an account in a Cyprus bank, you may not care much whether these depositors have their money seized.

After all, that was the risk they took for storing their money in weak banks, right?

Well, yes, that was the risk they took.

But ever since the Great Depression wiped out a big percentage of the world's banks, vaporizing the bank depositors' savings in the process, banking system regulators have tried to do everything they can to protect bank depositors.

And they are smart to do so.

Because the moment depositors think that there is risk to their savings, they rush to banks to yank their money out.

That's called a run on the bank.

And since no bank anywhere has enough cash on hand to pay off all its depositors at once, runs on the bank cause banks to go bust.

That's what happened to hundreds of banks in the Great Depression.

And it's what happened to Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and other huge banks during the financial crisis (though, with Bear and Lehman, the folks who yanked their money out weren't mom and pop depositors but other big financial institutions). It's what threatened to bring the entire U.S. financial system to its knees. And it's why the U.S. and European governments have been frantically bailing out banks ever since.

But now, thanks to the eurozone's bizarre decision in Cyprus, the illusion that depositors don't need to yank their money out of threatened banks because they'll be protected has been shattered.

Depositors in Cyprus banks will lose some of their money.

They will be furious about this.

And they will, rightly, feel that it is grossly unfair — because depositors in the bailed-out banks in Ireland, Greece, etc. didn't lose their money.

And they will feel like fools for not having taken their money out.

And ... here's the important part ...

Other depositors at weak banks all over Europe, in places like Spain, Italy, and Greece, will rightly wonder whether this is the beginning of a new era of bank bailouts, an era in which bank depositors are going lose some of their money.

What do you think those other depositors in Spain, Italy, Greece, etc., are going to feel like doing when they realize that, if their banks ever need a bailout, they might have their deposits seized?

That's right.

They're going to feel like yanking their money out of their banks.

And if some of them yank their money out of their banks, well — then the financial condition of those banks will go from weak to insolvent.

And the banks will go rushing to their governments and the eurozone for help.

And the eurozone decides to seize the deposits of more bank depositors.. Well, then, a good portion of Europe might suddenly experience a good old-fashioned bank run.

That, to put it mildly, could be a disaster.

It could bring the European financial crisis, which has lurched from one flare-up to another for most of the past five years, to a rather sudden head.

How much would it cost for the powers-that-be to bail out all of Europe's weak banks at once?

A lot.

More than the Eurozone has in its emergency lending facilities, certainly. And more than the International Monetary Fund has on hand.

So the U.S. would probably have to get involved. And, regardless of whether the U.S. got directly involved, the European economy would likely suffer the equivalent of a heart attack.

That wouldn't be good for the U.S. economy.

Or the Chinese economy.

Or any other economy that sells things to Europe.

So, you can see, this little decision to seize a little money from bank depositors in the little island of Cyprus could be a much bigger deal than you think.

It could conceivably precipitate a run on weak European banks.

And a run on weak European banks could hammer the European economy and then the economy of Europe's trading partners. And it could cause global markets to crash.

So keep an eye on what's going on over there in Cyprus.

It's potentially much more important than it seems.

finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-cyprus-bail-bigger-deal-think-141844402.html

[PrisonerOfHope]

Zero made provision for doing this in the US last October. I don't keep any money in the bank beyond what's needed to cover payments I make:

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans’ Bank Accounts
Written by Bob Adelmann



The latest executive order (EO) emanating from the White House October 9 now claims the power to freeze all bank accounts and stop any related financial transactions that a “sanctioned person” may own or try to perform — all in the name of “Iran Sanctions.”

Titled an “Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions…” the order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a “sanctioned person,” he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization” that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.

And if the individual so “sanctioned” decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn't allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.

But it’s all very legal. The EO says the president has his “vested authority” to issue it, and then references endless previous EOs, including one dating back to 1995 which declared a “state of emergency” (which hasn’t been lifted): Executive Order 12957.

EO 12957 was issued by President Bill Clinton on March 15, 1995, which was also obliquely related to the Iran “problem”:

I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of the Government of Iran to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Clinton’s EO further delegated such powers as were necessary to enforce the EO to the secretaries of the treasury and state “to employ all powers … as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government.”

Such EOs are the perfect embodiment of what the Founders feared the most: the combining of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions into one body. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says: “All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” As Thomas Eddlem, writing for The New American, expressed it, “then it stands to reason [that] none is left for the president.”

But Joe Wolverton, also in The New American, pointed out the particular piece of language the Founders used to limit the powers of the president which totalitarians have twisted to allow such powers to expand: the “take care” clause, to wit: Article II, Section 3: he [the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…

With every EO, the president avoids the cumbersome constitutional safeguards spelled out by the Constitution, and uses them to implement policies he "knows" are right. Says Wolverton: "With every one of these … executive orders, then, the president elevates his mind and will above that of the people, Congress and the courts."

The current administration has had a lot of help in justifying and codifying the legitimacy of executive orders, going all the way back to President George Washington who in 1793 issued his “Neutrality Proclamation,” which declared that the United States would remain neutral in the current conflict between France and Great Britain, and would bring sanctions against any American citizen who attempted to provide assistance to either party. The language of Washington is eerily similar to that used by President Obama in the present case:

I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid toward those powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition…

I have given instructions to those officers to whom it belongs to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations with respect to the powers at war, or any of them.

When James Madison protested Washington’s usurpation of powers not intended for the president, Congress acquiesced and passed, retroactively, the Neutrality Act of 1794, validating Washington’s usurpation.

President Lincoln engaged in similar usurpations, using presidential “directives” to run the early months of the Civil War, presenting Congress with, as Todd Gaziano put it,

the decision either to adopt his [directives] as legislation or to cut off support for the Union army.

Within his first two months in office, on April 15, 1861, Lincoln issued a proclamation activating troops to defeat the Southern rebellion and for Congress to convene on July 4.

He also issued proclamations to procure warships and to expand the size of the military; in both cases, the proclamations provided for payment to be advanced from the Treasury without congressional approval.

These latter actions were probably unconstitutional, but Congress acquiesced in the face of wartime contingencies, and the matters were never challenged in court.

President Franklin Roosevelt often overlooked the niceties of constitutional restraints as well. As Gaziano expressed it, “FDR also showed a tendency to abuse his executive order authority and [to] claim powers that were not conferred on him in the Constitution or by statute.”

As far as numbers of executive orders issued, Obama is a piker. At the moment, although the list is growing, his administration has issued 138 executive orders. President Theodore Roosevelt issued 1,006 while President Woodrow Wilson issued 1,791. Even President Calvin Coolidge used the EO “privilege” 1,253 times.

The granddaddy of them all, FDR, issued an astounding 3,728 executive orders, but of course he was in office longer than Obama.

President Bill Clinton issued only 364 executive orders, but he made the most of them, using this extra-legal power to, among other things, wage war in Yugoslavia without congressional approval. Cliff Kincaid collated the numerous EOs issued by Clinton in 1998 and 1999, and concluded:

Clinton waged his war on Yugoslavia through executive order and presidential directive. Clinton used executive orders to designate a "war zone," call up troops, proclaim a "national emergency" with respect to Yugoslavia, and impose economic sanctions on the Belgrade government.

Clinton claimed war-making presidential authority through his "constitutional authority" to conduct "foreign relations," as "Commander in Chief" and as "Chief Executive." Under this self-designated authority, Clinton delegated command-and-control of U.S. forces to NATO and its Secretary-General Javier Solana, who decided when the air war would be discontinued…

The most outrageous executive order of all time was that issued by President Roosevelt that allowed the enforced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans: 9066.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) called EOs patently unconstitutional. When asked about them by Fox News’ Megan Kelly, Paul responded:

The Constitution says that only Congress passes laws. The executive branch is not allowed to pass laws, nor should the judicial system pass laws. So it is clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders.

They’ve been done for a long time, both parties have done it, but the Congress is careless. They allow and encourage and do these deals … to get the president to circumvent the Congress. If something’s unpopular and he can’t get it passed, well, let’s just sign an executive order. So I think that is blatantly wrong. I think this defies everything the founders intended. I think it’s a shame that Congress does it, and I think it’s a shame that the American people put up with it.

thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13196-another-obama-executive-order-allows-seizure-of-americans%E2%80%99-bank-accounts