Only the assets of the un-PC wealthy will be seized. The primary goal is to seize the assets of the shrinking middle class making us dependent upon the state. Its proper name is fascism.

Largarde does not “know anything” about finance, she too is part of that Nomenklatura, and she is just looking out for her bunch. It is just her turn to be at the IMF. It is absurd to thing that any of these people know anything about “business” at all. Heaves, the IMF is bankrolled by the taxpayer–it is not a “bank”.

Seizing assets of “the wealthy” does not solve anything at all. It just destroys everything that Western order of the last 300-400 years is built on.

This business in Cyprus, if it goes much further, will be a disaster for us all.

Your retirement plans.”

This theme about the US govt. raiding private retirement accounts has been coming up more regularly lately, and it’s worth reading for that reason. http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/03/18/the-eu-crosses-the-rubicon/2/

There ARE american congressmen and academics who are backing this as a viable plan, and as Driscoll points out, it may be idiots we elected in Washington, who kick the can down the road until they have no other choice but to steal it. I’m sure if it happens, we who are appalled by the action will be considered selfish, unpatriotic people, and those who have nothing to contribute will be virtuous; each one a victim of the savers who were hoarding money they didn’t need.
It’s hard to believe this idea is even mentioned or debated in our country as a serious consideration, and yet here we are, the once free USA, wondering if you would be stupid not to prepare for it.

“If God didn’t want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.” Mexican bandit speaking of poor villagers

People are either sheep, wolves or sheepdogs.

Few sheep ever realize the cost of the bargain that they have made. The response of “so what?” and “what difference does it make now?” are evasions so as not to confront the truth.

Churchill notably asked, “Once in a while, we stumble upon the truth, will you face it or decide to pick yourself up and hurry along, as if nothing had happened?”

Those who refuse to face reality are its certain victims. But these are ‘victims’ who choose their victimhood.

I alerted my brother, who is a liberal nihilist, about the Cyprus business, and he was a big, “So what”? Suggested the alternative was for Cyprus to simply nationalize the banks, that way all Cypriots could share.

I knew when I alerted him it was futile. But I keep trying. He must care for something more than the legalization of marijuana.

Socialists don’t admit to the possibility that they could “run out of other people’s money” because their premise of the primacy of ‘fairness’ necessitates incrementally categorizing that everything ultimately belongs to the state.

Socialism’s base premise of fairness (selectively applied) is the liberal justification for the end justifying the means and since socialism ignores economic reality it must, over time eat its own society’s ‘seed corn’ and inevitably result in an entrenched elite ruling over a regulated population.

The question; “How is the Federal Government supposed to unwind its ownership in the growing number of companies it has nationalized” presupposes that the Obama administration wants to “unwind its ownership” and that it has the intention to do so. It presupposes that the nationalization of American companies isn’t a goal in and of itself as part of a larger agenda of “fundamentally transforming” America.