What I don't understand is how they managed to make the holding (um, "hoarding") of gold illegal in 1933 without a widespread backlash. The hubris of even considering the action shocks me. But then, it was the middle of the Great Depression, so I presume most people had better things to worry about, like food and shelter.
How can they get away with raising taxes only on the "rich" (quotes intentionally because it is always poorly defined) to pay for increased spending which mostly benefits the "non-rich"? Easy, people are selfish, shortsighted, and greedy. Modern day career (lifetime) politicians are masters of exploiting those characteristics.
Most working class people didn't have any significant gold bullion in the early 1900s and if they did they sold it (likely to already insanely rich people) during the depression so they wouldn't starve. The rich had bigger problems to worry about. There was serious talk about nationalization of wealth (aka communism) in the 1930s. Having to sell some coins to Uncle Sam is a small price compared to suddenly all your wealth is owned by "the people".
It would be like the government today saying private jets or residences valued at more than $20,000,000 are prohibited (or slapped with a punitive excessive wealth annual tax). How much of an uproar would that cause? Divide and Conquer has been a tool of subjugation for the state for a couple thousand years and it still works just as well today.