As johan; very clearly put it, defaulting, or other major economical/social disruption event is waived as a threat, but the fact is that even the right to have those is taken away from people.
Have you thought about those to question marks? Why not taking on the very wealthy? Why not taking on the church?
Really, why is directly impacting the bulk of the population assets more reasonable than a handful. If they were going to say "well, it's not fair, but we need to put the hands on working class people's pockets" why is it always out of question simple take over a couple of strategic large companies?

If this is as serious as they want to make everyone believe, then they could simple gather a couple of hundred soldiers and in one single morning take over the largest bank, or the largest power company and nationalize it. This is the way it has been done since the dawn of human history.
The matter in question here is not country finance or other bullshit they come up with, it is: "how can we still make business".

A few years ago, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez acompained by militar force, headed up to Santander Bank's office and demanded the to leave the country while paying them in cash the estimated value of the bank. You might not like him (he's dead anyway) but this is the difference between actually wanting to fix an economical problem and just giving you some bullshit so you work harder and get payed less while their business is not disruped or abruptly take out of their hands.

Now all those think bitcoin can have an important role here, I haven't looked at the numbers, but I don't think bitcoin provides enough liquidity right now, it would need to be worth some 100 times more or so. But you cannot expect it to arbitrarily being inflated that much in a short period of time. That would be even worse than bootstraping a new currency.