THIS scares me: from Jonathon Turley's website

[snappyturtle]

59. I've done more reading on this doc by the FDIC and BOE.

First notice that many times over in the document that the taxpayers, or public funds,
yada yada, yada, are mentioned not to be the source of funds to right the financial
situation of the banks. So, where do the banks get the money to stay alive? um.

Second, there is no exemption for insured deposits or depositors mentioned. The only
time I read 'deposits' was in a directive to the banks contained in the doc to set up
good communication to assure deposits were "protected". Equity? Didn't say by
insurance.

Third, there is global precedence with Cyprus and a big wig Italian banking CEO and New
Zealand. The CEO publically stated it's ok for banks to seize deposits and NZ, see below,
is making plans not unlike the FDIC-BOE document...just more specific than the latter.
They're making it the new meme. Meanwhile, banks are still engaging risky business
with their shady derivatives, etc. Look at JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon.

The only threat I saw for banks is that they could be split up and top heads will be
canned....so?....by that time the fortunes will have ballooned. For all the talk of splitting
up banks or nationalizing them...it's just rhetoric. I think the President could have gotten
some support for nationalizing the banks during the early months of the crises here but....

Your choice of the word "theoretically" in reference to the FDIC insurance is well
chosen. imho That's what scares me.

You may find the following articles interesting


http://www.collapsingintoconsciousness.com/depositors-are-now-unsecured-creditors/

http://americablog.com/2013/04/fdic-uk-nz-deposit-confiscation.html