One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Bank account confiscation in EU.
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
May 12, 2014 07:04:52   #
Patty
 
Coming to a bank near you.
"Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics,

David Cameron has come out and argued that taxes will rise unless he can raid bank accounts in the UK. Cameron argues he will “have to put up taxes” unless tax officials are given draconian powers to raid people’s bank accounts if they think they even owe money. Trust me – all politicians share ideas. Obama is already conniving a way to do the same thing – you can bet on that.

There is no elite private conspiracy of some dominating group. That implies some comprehension of what is even possible. I have sat in the room with such people and these conspiracy stories give these people way too much credit for being intelligent. Nobody smart enough to handle the job ever seeks such positions. Governments are run by lawyer-politicians who think they need only decree some law that solves the problem. They understand nothing. Why should people keep money in a bank in the UK after Cameron makes such a statement? He is way too stupid to realize people act in anticipation.

If I said I was going to punch you in the face, would you stand there or act in anticipation like move or fight back? Politicians cannot get this through their head that the economy functions always in anticipation of future events. They are just crazy – although not out of their mind entirely just yet. They can read a script, but they are incapable of understanding the people or math.

These people are simply beyond control. All they can see is the immediate issue to survive day-by-day. They have absolutely zero comprehension of what they are doing and even less understanding of what happens when there is no more money they can raid. Those at the helm of the world need no elite-conspiracy. They are too stupid to have long-term plans beyond 30 days. This is how Empires Collapse – they are following the precise step-by-step guide for total chaos."

Reply
May 12, 2014 07:24:20   #
Hemiman Loc: Communist California
 
Patty wrote:
Coming to a bank near you.
"Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics,

David Cameron has come out and argued that taxes will rise unless he can raid bank accounts in the UK. Cameron argues he will “have to put up taxes” unless tax officials are given draconian powers to raid people’s bank accounts if they think they even owe money. Trust me – all politicians share ideas. Obama is already conniving a way to do the same thing – you can bet on that.

There is no elite private conspiracy of some dominating group. That implies some comprehension of what is even possible. I have sat in the room with such people and these conspiracy stories give these people way too much credit for being intelligent. Nobody smart enough to handle the job ever seeks such positions. Governments are run by lawyer-politicians who think they need only decree some law that solves the problem. They understand nothing. Why should people keep money in a bank in the UK after Cameron makes such a statement? He is way too stupid to realize people act in anticipation.

If I said I was going to punch you in the face, would you stand there or act in anticipation like move or fight back? Politicians cannot get this through their head that the economy functions always in anticipation of future events. They are just crazy – although not out of their mind entirely just yet. They can read a script, but they are incapable of understanding the people or math.

These people are simply beyond control. All they can see is the immediate issue to survive day-by-day. They have absolutely zero comprehension of what they are doing and even less understanding of what happens when there is no more money they can raid. Those at the helm of the world need no elite-conspiracy. They are too stupid to have long-term plans beyond 30 days. This is how Empires Collapse – they are following the precise step-by-step guide for total chaos."
Coming to a bank near you. br "Submitted by M... (show quote)


I do believe all you say in your post,however it's the business persons behind the politicians I fear.I think they do understand all that you mentioned,at least here in the U.S.

Reply
May 12, 2014 07:38:11   #
Patty
 
The FDIC has already made an agreement to steal our money from our accounts at the same time so as to stop anyone from being able to stop them.
http://fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf
"10 Following the crisis, an overhaul of the framework for dealing with large and complex financial institution failures was required. While it may be useful to strengthen the current bankruptcy code or administration rules to improve the handling of financial failures, systemic considerations warrant having an alternative resolution strategy.
11 A resolution strategy for a failed or failing G-SIFI should assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors, and hold management responsible for the failure of the firm. The strategy should provide continuity of the critical services that the institution provides within the financial system and to the real economy, thereby minimizing systemic risk. The strategy should also enable a prompt t***sition of the firm’s ongoing operations to full private ownership and control without taxpayer support. Given the cross-border nature of G-SIFIs, the resolution strategy should ensure financial stability concerns are addressed across all jurisdictions in which the firm operates. To be successful, such an approach will require close cooperation between home and foreign authorities.
12 Under the strategies currently being developed by the U.S. and the U.K., the resolution authority could intervene at the top of the group. Culpable senior management of the parent and operating businesses would be removed, and losses would be apportioned to shareholders and unsecured creditors. In all likelihood, shareholders would lose all value and unsecured creditors should thus expect that their claims would be written down to reflect any losses that shareholders did not cover. Under both the U.S. and U.K. approaches, legal safeguards ensure that creditors recover no less than they would under insolvency.
13 An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors of the failed company into equity. In the U.S., the new equity would become capital in one or more newly formed operating entities. In the U.K., the same approach could be used, or the equity could be used to recapitalize the failing financial company itself—thus, the highest layer of surviving bailed-in creditors would become the owners of the resolved firm. In either country, the new equity holders would take on the corresponding risk of being shareholders in a financial institution. Throughout, subsidiaries (domestic and foreign) carrying out critical activities would be kept open and operating, thereby limiting contagion effects. Such a resolution strategy would ensure market discipline and maintain financial stability without cost to taxpayers.
Legislative frameworks for implementing the strategy
14 It should be stressed that the application of such a strategy can be achieved only within a legislative framework that provides authorities with key resolution powers. The FSB Key Attributes have established a crucial framework for the implementation of an effective set of resolution powers and practices into national regimes. In the U.S., these powers had already become available under the Dodd-Frank Act. In the U.K., the additional powers needed to enhance the existing resolution framework established under the Banking Act 2009 (the Banking Act) are expected to be fully provided by the European Commission’s proposals for a European Union Recovery and Resolution Directive (RRD) and through the domestic reforms that implement the recommendations of the U.K. Independent Commission on Banking (ICB), enhancing the existing resolution framework established under the Banking Act. The development of effective resolution strategies is being carried out in anticipation of such legislation.
U.S. regime....."
This whole agreement should be read by anyone who has money in a US bank here. All the laws are already in place to steal their money.

Reply
 
 
May 12, 2014 11:24:54   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
Patty wrote:
Coming to a bank near you.
"Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics,

David Cameron has come out and argued that taxes will rise unless he can raid bank accounts in the UK. Cameron argues he will “have to put up taxes” unless tax officials are given draconian powers to raid people’s bank accounts if they think they even owe money. Trust me – all politicians share ideas. Obama is already conniving a way to do the same thing – you can bet on that.

There is no elite private conspiracy of some dominating group. That implies some comprehension of what is even possible. I have sat in the room with such people and these conspiracy stories give these people way too much credit for being intelligent. Nobody smart enough to handle the job ever seeks such positions. Governments are run by lawyer-politicians who think they need only decree some law that solves the problem. They understand nothing. Why should people keep money in a bank in the UK after Cameron makes such a statement? He is way too stupid to realize people act in anticipation.

If I said I was going to punch you in the face, would you stand there or act in anticipation like move or fight back? Politicians cannot get this through their head that the economy functions always in anticipation of future events. They are just crazy – although not out of their mind entirely just yet. They can read a script, but they are incapable of understanding the people or math.

These people are simply beyond control. All they can see is the immediate issue to survive day-by-day. They have absolutely zero comprehension of what they are doing and even less understanding of what happens when there is no more money they can raid. Those at the helm of the world need no elite-conspiracy. They are too stupid to have long-term plans beyond 30 days. This is how Empires Collapse – they are following the precise step-by-step guide for total chaos."
Coming to a bank near you. br "Submitted by M... (show quote)



Oh, my, another yada yada yada Paddywaddy economy post! The fraud worth of Putin Patty's economics is in this instance definitively measured by the credibility ranking of Martin Armstrong, the quoted source. (1) his claim to economic fame is his claim to have pinpointed to the day the 1987 stock market collapse with "tinny" formula to pinpoint all collapses to the day...(2) his pleading guilty to a fraud scheme...released in 2011 after serving 5 year jail sentence.

Would you like to state Mr. Armstrong's credentials as a "reliable source," Patty?

Reply
May 12, 2014 11:25:24   #
Patty
 
Don't you have someone to go report and try to get booted off of here if they don't agree with you?
"jonhatfield wrote:
There is zero in my reply to base such an allegation on. I have reported your statements to administration, suggesting they require you to apologize or leave OPP."
jonhatfield wrote:
Oh, my, another yada yada yada Paddywaddy economy post! The fraud worth of Putin Patty's economics is in this instance definitively measured by the credibility ranking of Martin Armstrong, the quoted source. (1) his claim to economic fame is his claim to have pinpointed to the day the 1987 stock market collapse with "tinny" formula to pinpoint all collapses to the day...(2) his pleading guilty to a fraud scheme...released in 2011 after serving 5 year jail sentence.

Would you like to state Mr. Armstrong's credentials as a "reliable source," Patty?
Oh, my, another yada yada yada Paddywaddy economy ... (show quote)

Reply
May 12, 2014 11:29:11   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
P.S. Patty, what do you intend by this tax debt bank account liability is "coming to a bank near you"? What kind of economic plan, plot, conspiracy story line are you promoting now?

Reply
May 12, 2014 11:54:54   #
Patty
 
jonhatfield wrote:
P.S. Patty, what do you intend by this tax debt bank account liability is "coming to a bank near you"? What kind of economic plan, plot, conspiracy story line are you promoting now?


This has some big words in it but if you have someone read it slowly to you then maybe you can grasp the main point and that is that it is already law and a joint agreement between the BoE and the FDIC.
http://fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf
You may apologize now if you are man enough. I wont hold my breath.

Reply
 
 
May 12, 2014 11:57:23   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
Patty wrote:
The FDIC has already made an agreement to steal our money from our accounts at the same time so as to stop anyone from being able to stop them.
http://fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf
"10 Following the crisis, an overhaul of the framework for dealing with large and complex financial institution failures was required. While it may be useful to strengthen the current bankruptcy code or administration rules to improve the handling of financial failures, systemic considerations warrant having an alternative resolution strategy.
11 A resolution strategy for a failed or failing G-SIFI should assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors, and hold management responsible for the failure of the firm. The strategy should provide continuity of the critical services that the institution provides within the financial system and to the real economy, thereby minimizing systemic risk. The strategy should also enable a prompt t***sition of the firm’s ongoing operations to full private ownership and control without taxpayer support. Given the cross-border nature of G-SIFIs, the resolution strategy should ensure financial stability concerns are addressed across all jurisdictions in which the firm operates. To be successful, such an approach will require close cooperation between home and foreign authorities.
12 Under the strategies currently being developed by the U.S. and the U.K., the resolution authority could intervene at the top of the group. Culpable senior management of the parent and operating businesses would be removed, and losses would be apportioned to shareholders and unsecured creditors. In all likelihood, shareholders would lose all value and unsecured creditors should thus expect that their claims would be written down to reflect any losses that shareholders did not cover. Under both the U.S. and U.K. approaches, legal safeguards ensure that creditors recover no less than they would under insolvency.
13 An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors of the failed company into equity. In the U.S., the new equity would become capital in one or more newly formed operating entities. In the U.K., the same approach could be used, or the equity could be used to recapitalize the failing financial company itself—thus, the highest layer of surviving bailed-in creditors would become the owners of the resolved firm. In either country, the new equity holders would take on the corresponding risk of being shareholders in a financial institution. Throughout, subsidiaries (domestic and foreign) carrying out critical activities would be kept open and operating, thereby limiting contagion effects. Such a resolution strategy would ensure market discipline and maintain financial stability without cost to taxpayers.
Legislative frameworks for implementing the strategy
14 It should be stressed that the application of such a strategy can be achieved only within a legislative framework that provides authorities with key resolution powers. The FSB Key Attributes have established a crucial framework for the implementation of an effective set of resolution powers and practices into national regimes. In the U.S., these powers had already become available under the Dodd-Frank Act. In the U.K., the additional powers needed to enhance the existing resolution framework established under the Banking Act 2009 (the Banking Act) are expected to be fully provided by the European Commission’s proposals for a European Union Recovery and Resolution Directive (RRD) and through the domestic reforms that implement the recommendations of the U.K. Independent Commission on Banking (ICB), enhancing the existing resolution framework established under the Banking Act. The development of effective resolution strategies is being carried out in anticipation of such legislation.
U.S. regime....."
This whole agreement should be read by anyone who has money in a US bank here. All the laws are already in place to steal their money.
The FDIC has already made an agreement to steal ou... (show quote)


So, the agenda for the Martin Armstrong quote is to imply the government is plotting to "steal" our money. Yup, that's a typical yada yada yada Paddywaddy economics conspiracy story line.

Interesting aspect of this quoted FDIC and Bank of England memorandum is that it outlines in effect the same policy regarding big bank failures as Iceland followed and which Patty posted praising...kind of two-sided, huh? :idea: :roll: :roll:

However, the real revelation of these two Patty quotes this time is the complete disconnect among (1) tax liability bank account liability (Martin quote), (2) definition of bankruptcy and re-booting of failed big banks (FDIC/Bank of England memorandum quote), and (3) Patty's making all this out as imminent theft of our personal bank accounts. This disconnect shows either total confusion or disingenuousness. Deliberate disingenuity is a fancy term for pretending something that one knows isn't true...in other words, deliberate deception, dishonesty. Of course, it could be confusion. Care to explain which it is, Patty? Care to explain the connections to "stealing" our bank accounts or admit you were simply confused?

What's your agenda anyway in promoting distrust in safety of our bank accounts in the first place? Care to explain your purpose? ...and its connection to all your other doom-of-the-dollar and elitist conspiracy story lines in so many of your posted threads, Patty?

Reply
May 12, 2014 12:00:07   #
Patty
 
Read the link I gave you fool. It is already law. Denying it only exposes your ignorance.
jonhatfield wrote:
So, the agenda for the Martin Armstrong quote is to imply the government is plotting to "steal" our money. Yup, that's a typical yada yada yada Paddywaddy economics conspiracy story line.

Interesting aspect of this quoted FDIC and Bank of England memorandum is that it outlines in effect the same policy regarding big bank failures as Iceland followed and which Patty posted praising...kind of two-sided, huh? :idea: :roll: :roll:

However, the real revelation of these two Patty quotes this time is the complete disconnect among (1) tax liability bank account liability (Martin quote), (2) definition of bankruptcy and re-booting of failed big banks (FDIC/Bank of England memorandum quote), and (3) Patty's making all this out as imminent theft of our personal bank accounts. This disconnect shows either total confusion or disingenuousness. Deliberate disingenuity is a fancy term for pretending something that one knows isn't true...in other words, deliberate deception, dishonesty. Of course, it could be confusion. Care to explain which it is, Patty? Care to explain the connections to "stealing" our bank accounts or admit you were simply confused?

What's your agenda anyway in promoting distrust in safety of our bank accounts in the first place? Care to explain your purpose? ...and its connection to all your other doom-of-the-dollar and elitist conspiracy story lines in so many of your posted threads, Patty?
So, the agenda for the Martin Armstrong quote is t... (show quote)

Reply
May 12, 2014 12:10:37   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
P.S. The FDIC/Bank of England memorandum you quote deals with bank officials liability, loss of shareholder investment, and loss of unsecured creditor monies in bank bankruptcy situations where government steps in to restructure banks (as happened with the 2007 bankruptcy situations). That has no connection to a plot for "stealing money from our accounts." Would you care to explain the false TWIST you did on your quoted material? You owe an explanation or an outright admission stating you were wrong in your statement.

Reply
May 12, 2014 12:10:57   #
Patty
 
Here little Jonnie. I feel sorry for you so I will take one section of the law and explain it to you.
You're welcome.

11 A resolution strategy for a failed or failing G-SIFI should assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors(that's depositors, us)management responsible for the failure of the firm. The strategy should provide continuity of the critical services that the institution provides within the financial system and to the real economy, thereby minimizing systemic risk.(bank runs) The strategy should also enable a prompt t***sition of the firm’s ongoing operations to full private ownership and control without taxpayer support.(after raiding the peoples accounts ownership should go back to the owners) Given the cross-border nature of G-SIFIs, the resolution strategy should ensure financial stability concerns are addressed 3
across all jurisdictions in which the firm operates. To be successful, such an approach will require close cooperation between home and foreign authorities.(We will have to steal their deposited money across every country where there is a branch in all countries at one time)

There hope that helps.

Reply
 
 
May 12, 2014 12:18:12   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
Patty wrote:
Read the link I gave you fool. It is already law. Denying it only exposes your ignorance.


Calling me a fool and stating I'm exposing my ignorance and pointing to your link is deflection and dishonest argumentation. You owe an explanation of the disconnect between the quoted situations and what you falsely claim they say.

Reply
May 12, 2014 12:27:07   #
Patty
 
If you still don't understand it after I wasted my time explaining it to you that isn't my fault. It is probably a genetic defect and should blame the pool that you were spawned from.
jonhatfield wrote:
Calling me a fool and stating I'm exposing my ignorance and pointing to your link is deflection and dishonest argumentation. You owe an explanation of the disconnect between the quoted situations and what you falsely claim they say.

Reply
May 12, 2014 12:27:49   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
Patty wrote:
Here little Jonnie. I feel sorry for you so I will take one section of the law and explain it to you.
You're welcome.

11 A resolution strategy for a failed or failing G-SIFI should assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors(that's depositors, us)management responsible for the failure of the firm. The strategy should provide continuity of the critical services that the institution provides within the financial system and to the real economy, thereby minimizing systemic risk.(bank runs) The strategy should also enable a prompt t***sition of the firm’s ongoing operations to full private ownership and control without taxpayer support.(after raiding the peoples accounts ownership should go back to the owners) Given the cross-border nature of G-SIFIs, the resolution strategy should ensure financial stability concerns are addressed 3
across all jurisdictions in which the firm operates. To be successful, such an approach will require close cooperation between home and foreign authorities.(We will have to steal their deposited money across every country where there is a branch in all countries at one time)

There hope that helps.
Here little Jonnie. I feel sorry for you so I will... (show quote)


Your credibility of economics is exposed by your defining "unsecured creditors" as bank account holders. Bank account holders are protected by FDIC insurance up to certain amounts on EACH account...common knowledge. What's your purpose in your bank account confiscation twists?

Reply
May 12, 2014 12:43:34   #
Patty
 
There you go again assuming there is no small print and you live in the land of lollipops and gum drops.
The FDIC only guarantees your deposit if the bank goes bankrupt. This law keeps them from doing that. Pssst by the way the FDIC only has insurance money in reserve enough to pay about 1 cent on every dollar deposited. Did you really think the FDIC was fully backed to repay every depositor in this country? You really are ignorant.
"FDIC insurance protects you from losses if your bank goes belly-up. You think of the bank as a very safe place for your money, but banks loan your money out and invest it in a variety of ways. If those investments go sour, what happens to your money? This page discusses how FDIC insurance works. For more information on the FDIC in general, see Overview and History of the FDIC."
http://banking.about.com/od/savings/a/fdicinsurance.htm

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.