OT Never in America?

Page 2 of 3  
snipped-for-privacy@my-deja.com wrote in

Countries adopted the euro, because the idea of a single currency and no exchange rate fluctuations, banks imposing exchanging fees, etc etc was so persuasive. I really liked being able to travel in Europe (I quite often went from Holland through Belgium to France and Italy) without having to recalculate from Dutch guilders to Belgian franks to French franks and to Italian lire, all being widely different in value.
The problem was that "they" instituted a single currency, but didn't institute similar taxing and economic policies. Some didn't understand the need, others hoped that would automagically follow (yea, big whoop!). Then they admitted other countries to the euro and just plainly believed the books of the authorities in those countries. Now there are problems (big surprise). Countries like Greece and Italy that were used to have their currencies get devalued every so often to make their economy run in tune with the powerful countries like Germany, UK and US, can't do that anymore and now have to come up with the revenue by taxation and economic reforms. And that is painful - no kidding.
Cyprus seems to be an even more special case because it is (it seems) a haven for dubious moneys to get laundered lily-white. Mostly Russian, but there is an excessive amount of UK money (and other countries') as well. That is why they tried to tax "savings", without thinking through the consequences.
We'll see how it all packs out.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han used improper usenet message-composition style by unnecessarily full-quoting:

The analogy that I've heard goes as follows:
Americans would be pissed if their tax dollars were used to bail out a Texas bank (and by extension the account holders of the bank) that held significant deposits sourced from Mexican drug cartels.
Why were the Cypriot banks going bankrupt?
They seemed to be heavily invested in Greek bonds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@my-deja.com wrote:

Simple.
I was short USD:CAD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/18/2013 11:04 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/17/us-cyprus-parliament-idUSBRE92G03I20130317

One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday 18 March 2013 18:02 Oren wrote in alt.home.repair:

"They" might have, assuming you mean Cyprus.
We (UK) did not get a sodding vote. We had a vote on the EEC in 1975 which was nothing like the EU - and few punters imagined the EU in its present form:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975
Archbishop Makarios III will be spinning in his grave - still, I suppose they could strap some magnets on him and have an energy export to rival Russian gas.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/18/13 02:35 pm, Tim Watts wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 My late parents -- and I wonder how many more Brits beside -- were totally opposed to the Common Market but could not bring themselves to vote for the party that opposed UK membership in the Common Market and kept voting for the party that was in favor of the UK joining. They then kept complaining about Brussels this and Brussels that.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The government they DIDN'T vote for.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlKJmE4gVE

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hasn't helped so far. American bullshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

# Hasn't helped so far. # American bullshit.
LOL Sure harry. We believe you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/18/2013 10:04 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/17/us-cyprus-parliament-idUSBRE92G03I20130317

In America, we do it in the form of taxpayer subsidies. Per Bloomberg:
. . . what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?
. . . To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.
Full article at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:04:38 AM UTC-4, harry wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/17/us-cyprus-parliament-idUSBRE92G03I20130317 The news reports I heard were that the idea was rejected with prejudice.
Just news of it caused a run on the banks.
Will it happen here? Not a chance. Even just hinting at it will cause a total economic meltdown as people run on the banks to take out all their money.
I can't believe people like Rush are dumb enough to believe that it is even a possibility in the USA. There is not one American politician who would vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their money too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 20, 8:53 am, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

ey.

vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their mon ey too.
WARNING!
I just looked at this thread for the first time and clicked on the reuters link. Norton blocked it and came back saying it blocked an attack by Malicious Rootkit Website 33
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
' snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net[_2_ Wrote: > ;3032750']

Well, by now everyone has heard that the Cypriot parliament has rejected that idea and is now looking for another way to finance their bail out plans.
But, if they'd gone ahead with it, I'd have said that would be the 2nd extremely dangerous precedent that a government has set in my lifetime.
The first woulda been George Bush's "Let's build a coalition of the willing to attack Iraq before they attack us" plan. That, effectively set a precedent saying that you could justify starting a war with another country on the grounds that their intentions toward you are hostile. Unfortunately, I don't have enough fingers and toes to count off all the hostile relationships that have existed for years on this Good Earth... Argentina vs. Britain over the Falklands, Israel vs. everyone else over the Palestinians, China vs. Tibet, India vs. Pakistan over the Kashmir, Venezuela vs. Columbia, Turkey vs. Greece over Cyprus, Russia vs. Chechnya over who knows what, China vs. Japan over those rocks sticking out of the Sea of Japan, Malaysia vs. East Timor over independance, India vs. Sri Lanka over independance, Canada vs. Denmark over Hans Island, which isn't large enough to even play a game of soccer on, the USA vs. Cuba over the right to be communist, North Korea vs. South Korea over ideology, etc.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

One essential difference is that now we have countries run by unstable, total nut jobs that are rapidly developing WMDs that will be able to directly hit major cities in the USA. Some of those nut case ideologies, driven by religous fanaticism, have demonstrated over and over that they are very willing to die as long as they take as many innocents with them as possible. You may be OK living with that threat, but most of us are not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Kuwait was once part of Iraq. And the war was illegal,hence they had to find some lying excuse. ie, WMDs. Bush and Bliar are war criminals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:53:33 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote
Never in America?:

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

possibility in the USA. There is not one American politician who would vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their money too. The politicos will quietly exempt themselves, just like they do with other onerous legislation, e.g. social security.
Federal, state and local taxes consume more that 55% of the GDP <http://taxfoundation.org/tax-topics/tax-burdens and there is no end in sight.
Welcome to Amerika.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 20, 12:53 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

ey.

vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their mon ey too.
They would move their money abroad, being forwarned,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:53:33 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

possibility in the USA. There is not one American politician who would vote for such a ridiculous proposal, because they'd be giving up their money too. What a naive little lefty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:35:10 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

Not in the least. You'd be up in arms over it. 1/2 the population of the co untry would be up in arms over it. There would be uncontrollable civil unre st, riots, maybe even full-on armed revolt. It'll get real messy, real quic k, especially if it was done by an ILLEGAL "executive order" in the dead of night.
They would have a hard time justifying any sort of body count to their own people, let alone the rest of the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.