TexasCHLforum.com

EKO wrote:

VMI77 wrote: There are ways of "taking" that might not be considered "taking."

Like:
1. Keeping the Interest rate low.
2. Printing money and dumping it into the bond market.

Absolutely. But though most people seem to be too economically illiterate to catch on to that particular scam they do tend to notice money being openly stolen from their bank account or a forced conversion.

TexDotCom wrote:Wouldn't that be akin to a tax that has to be paid in order to exercise our inalienable right? I don't see how that would pass the Constitutional sniff-test.

Yeah, wouldn't that be in the same category as taxing a newspaper purchase? And the line is always that driving a car is a "privilege," not a right.

JALLEN wrote:Many believe, perhaps old-fashionedly, that taking of private property by the government is permitted only for a public use and upon just compensation

..... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, Fifth Amendment.

Of course, this doesn't limit taking for other than public use, I suppose.

This "Alice-In-Wonderland" use of words that has been growing, since fewer and fewer really understand words these days, is becoming profoundly disturbing.

There are ways of "taking" that might not be considered "taking." For instance, they could simply pass a law that says you can't retain your tax benefits and must pay a penalty if you don't purchase a certain percentage of government bonds with your account. Or there could be no penalty but you'd get no tax benefits moving forward unless you bought a certain percentage of government bonds. There would be no "taking" because one form of "investment" would be replaced with another of supposedly equal value. Or they could simply require you to buy a certain percentage of government bonds for "deficit reduction," or issue "social security bonds," or whatever, with a face value equal to the value of your account. Under the now very distorted interpretation of the Constitution I don't think there is any Constitutional impediment to dictating exactly how you must invest your assets in a tax deferred account, and possibly not in any other kind of account.

Dadtodabone wrote:

handog wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

geekwagun wrote:As I understand it, It is the government taking the funds. If the banks were to fail or some other legit reason, then the insurance would kick in, that is different than what is happening.

This admininstration here has also kicked around the idea of taking from 401K's and other retirment accounts - at least rumored to .

The day the government even entertains the idea of seriously raiding 401k's, or our bank accounts, there will be atomic wedgies applied early and often...

We are not quite there yet...But you can almost hear the salivating from the liberals around this country...

Obamas Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime.

False.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-its ... paredness/

This really has nothing to do with taking 401K's or other retirement accounts. That kind of a grab will use Congress as cover. And they are going to try it eventually though I don't think they have the votes to pull it off at the moment. The first step won't be outright confiscation but something like forced conversion, such as a requirement that some portion of the account contain government bonds.

Dave2 wrote:Seriously?!? Oh, yes, lets outright steal billions of $$ from the wealthy russian investors... that seems like a good idea...

I'm kinda hoping we'll get to see a uniquely Russian reaction to being robbed.