If those rich people were to lose a bunch of money, then we poor folks would get trickled on less.

People just have to understand the system is geared up for the rich. The rich get elected; then they write the laws. Ya think they're gonna write laws that don't protect them and other rich people?

There is a reason the House has just 435 members, and has for almost 100 years. With just one rep for about every 700,000 citizens, it ensures poor people can't get elected and gum up the works.

Oh... Obama is one of the rich, ya know?

in the budget at the last minute, & the big push to get it passed with the economy-wrecking rider attached.

We aren't represented by our government very well here.

Its heart-breaking, the level of corruption. If all this is true.

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Just look at how they have allowed our beautiful rivers to become polluted and nasty. I, too, am a Lover of Rivers. Love your moniker.

We are not well represented in government. Somehow the rich and powerful have grabbed more power.... and with that power more riches, and with those riches, more power.

Used to be on DU such power met much resistance, and like a river against a dam, one could see us flowing free again one day. Not so much anymore.

Note that the mass of DU is getting off telling everyone how they are against murder, but smirking at the slow death by a thousand knives from the rich and powerful as presented here.

Thank you. Our rivers are indeed nasty & what a fitting analogy you give them. I still hold hope for them to flow clear again one day, as testament to those wealthy, corrupt powers being washed away be the majority rising up against them. Peacefully. Thanks again RobertEarl.

If they fail, will the people receive stock ownership of these companies and this time clean house of these filthy crooks as being the new owners?

"We aren't represented by our government" that includes the leader of the govt. Obama, right. If the people get the shaft, who do we blame?

The workers in the industry. The crude flood is also hurting Russia, Iran and ISIS.

spent on locating a place in which to set up, money spent on purchasing the royalty rights, the return is in the production, this happens in many business, capital is put up front and hopefullt the ones putting up the money hopes to get a return.

Certainly not the communities that lose clean water. And now it seems to not be cost effective to all of us who will be bailing out the investors.
Open your eyes and look at the big picture and all parties involved not just some fossil fuel corporation.

said, it is not cost effective to the companies, open your eyes and read before jumping to conclusions.

If it smells like a setup and looks like a setup, it damn well probably is a setup.

More from the articles:

The big Wall Street banks did not expect plunging home prices to implode the mortgage-backed securities market in 2008, but their current models also did not have $60 oil prices included in projections. The huge losses may send a shock wave into the entire financial industry. It has been estimated that the six largest "too-big-to-fail" banks control $3.9 trillion in commodity derivatives contracts, those same gambling instruments that brought us the 2008 housing collapse. And a very large chunk of that amount is made up of oil derivatives. Combined with the huge flood of shale junk bonds on the market, the derivatives could initiate a bubble burst that could turn into a financial market implosion.

Meanwhile, the global climate change issue and energy market turbulence have morphed into geopolitical tensions over European fracking. Unsubstantiated allegations in a New York Times report by Andrew Higgins claim that the Russians are funding anti-fracking protests to maintain their hegemony over gas markets.

The allegations have infuriated environmentalists and climate justice activists. The last thing they want is to be made scapegoats for the fracking collapse and be played as the neo-Cold War dupes of the Russian empire. But memories of red-baiting suddenly hang in the air as (by seeming coincidence) dozens of right-wing media sites regularly devoted to anti-Soviet slanders or climate change denial immediatelypicked up Higgins' Times piece, as if on cue.

There are now dozens more of such published reports. Even as the US fracking industry collapses and tensions over control of Ukraine and other former Soviet satellites re-emerge, there seems to be a concerted right-wing effort to label fracking opponents Russian agents.

A betrayal of unimaginable proportions.

Where are taxpayers involved?

It doesn't get any of its money from us.

Which is how its set up now. But citizens aren't aware.

They've been gambling with NO risk.

And this is exactly why Warren was against this and gave the famous speech to the Senate in her fight to stop the rider from being included in the budget~

I have always assumed that if I choose to put money in an account at a bank, I am assuming the risk of losing that money. We all know a bank takes my money and pays me 1% and then loans that money out to someone else and charges 8%. Common sense says that if they lose that money, they have nothing to pay me back my money with. They are offering you compensation in exchange for that risk (1% payment on your money). If that is a risk greater than you are willing to accept, you can get a safe and store your money yourself and not have to worry about a bank going under (forfeiting your 1% payment).

Banks create the money that they lend, and destroy that money as the principal is paid off.

Thanks for the lesson.

We've never bailed out the FDIC, and the TARP bailout didn't cost taxpayers anything (the government made money on it).

I know you have posted this before, and yet so many here won't see the facts. They will continue spew things they know nothing about, and ignore the facts. I guess the only thing they want to do is complain about the president and the democratic party!

it seems that they want to blame Obama.

What used to be called "bets" are now backed by the US Taxpayer.

First, the FDIC receives no taxpayer money

Second, derivatives are still not FDIC insured.

I'd stick around for your talking points(I've read them at WSJ), but I have to go out now & earn a living.

If so, that's exactly what you got.

So that the lenders took on some risk in addition to the government.

on the bail out. I can guarantee you none of the people whose lives were completely ruined by the crash , who lost their homes , jobs and had their 401k's wiped out will ever see a red cent. Taxpayers shouldn't be put in this position in the first place. Some people were absolutely DEVASTATED and still haven't recovered. If the big banks knew they couldn't count on their losses being covered by taxpayer money maybe they wouldn't take so many damn risks.

I think that amount is highly optimistic.

*fuck*

It's funded by fees from banks. And it generally makes money when it takes over a bank.

FDIC didn't come into play. And it won't when we have to cover billions of dollars to save them from collapsing again due to oil/energy swaps/derivatives.

They're "too big too fail" remember? FDIC doesn't come close to covering their oil derivative risks.

about clean fighting. We need to do what we must.