How much will the market drop tomorrow?

[LilBastage]

Thanks for that.

I guess there's no "good" solution/band-aid for this mess is there?

I guess we're all headed for a bumpy ride. Some of us bumpier than others...

 

[Marco-Polo]

am) would the plan outlined above make a difference? Would it simply be a case of "at least they're doing something" adding confidence to the markets and opening up the credit crunch? Would it make a REAL difference in fixing the problem? Is there ANYTHING that can be done to fix this or is it all just window dressing to try to calm irrational people/markets?

Good point, and it deserves a serious answer.

A lot of the cratering is entirely rational in that it's a simple correction to underlying values for stuff. If you've ever studies - or done - negotiation, you know what a BATNA is, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. When a speculative bubble bursts, what's the best alternative when the next speculator simply isn't there? For real estate, the BATNA is approximated by prevailing rental rates. In other words, real estate prices will drop until they hit rental rates - until you can buy a house, rent it out, and pay the mortgage that way.

Part of what you said follows in this way: the BATNA for junk bonds based on real estate is to keep them and wait until they pay out at maturity. The BATNA for a foreclosure is to have the family keep its house. The problem is that you can't put off reckoning forever, and in terms of "market psychology", you should make it as soon as possible. As long as investors don't know what they're buying, they'll either demand extravagant terms or simply not buy.

A lot of institutions are way over-leveraged, and were vulnerable to just about any downturn; clearly, the financial industry has been choked with cheap cash and other people's money (look at Jack Welch's column in this week's BW). Some were in businesses they have no right being in, thanks to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and need to be taken over, torn up, and sold off. And a lot of people who had nothing to do with the market situation, people who just needed a roof over their heads, are going to end up hurt. There's no helping that; the best we can do, collectively, is cushion the blow inasmuch as possible and hope that the future's going to be better.

 

[Infinity]

MP, you have a good grasp on these issues. I'm interested in your ( or anyone's) comments.

Lets look at this in layman's terms...

When a company is forced to foreclose, they are taken over by liquidators who go about accounting for all their creditors (people/ companies, they owe). After assessing their reclaimable debtors (people / companies who owe them) and fixed assets, they then derive at a dollar number to distribute to the creditors. This amount could be as low as 5 to 10 cents in the dollar..There are occasions when the liquidators, in the interest of the creditors, keep trading. This decision is based on the fact, that they assume, by keeping the doors open, the creditors will derive more return. In some cases, people reclaim all their money.

What the government is proposing with this bailout is to fund all the companies in trouble to keep them buoyant, so as not to stop the flow of money. These companies are all linked, as you alluded to earlier so you can't save one without the other. Herein lies the problem IMHO...

The proposed bill not only saves the companies, it also saves the principles. This is wrong. The fat cats "will be back to business" as usual. Yes, they have attempted to reduce their golden parachutes but they will not suffer for the mismanagement of their companies. Here's where I will refrain from stating my opinion on why the powers that be, want this bill to go through.

Why are they not implementing foreclosure law? That is, kick out the fat cats (investigate them for mismanagement, fraud etc) and put in management to run these companies with the bailout money loaned from the tax payer. Trade the companies into a solvent state and then offer them up for sale. They will not need 700 B (remember, this was a thumb suck figure at the outset), perhaps they may only need 1/3 of that amount or less. Without the current principles, they would be free to act as the law allows them. That is, sell off fixed assets ( buildings etc) and no huge salary bills.

Bottom line, this is a plan that acts on and behalf of the interests of the American People.

Lastly, should this bill go through and it sure looks like it will, again, IMHO, it will not solve this crisis, it will just delay it. Too much bucks will be used to pay the principles and their staff and no assets will be sold off to reclaim some cash.

Brian

 

[Marco-Polo]

That's the nutshell version of what the Swedes did. We may have our political differences with the Swedes, but there's no disputing that when it comes to business, they're tough SOBs. In the end, the bailout cost the Swedes less than a quarter of what they spent at the outset - in fact, under some interpretations of time value of money, they made money on the deal.

Implementing commercial law (a foreclosure is essentially action taken for breach of contract) would require standing, which means the government would have to be one party to the transaction. In other words, the government would have to be the bondholder. That's one part of the bailout concept.

The other part is infusing companies with equity, so that they can return to profitability, or breaking them up/selling the parts, or even liquidating the operation. This is the second part of the bailout concept.

The proceeds from the hold to maturity value of the bonds, plus the proceeds from disposing of the federal equity in companies, are supposed to roughly pay for the cost of the operation. The part most likely to go wrong is that the government may overpay for bonds rather than taking the market value, plus an equity stake. Taking a major equity stake wipes out the current ownership - the principals as you called them. It would require that the government make entirely unsentimental decisions on which companies are to be invested in, which are to be closed down after investment, and which are to be left to die. Not an easy decision under the best of circumstances.

 

[Infinity]

The Swedes did not have a vested interest (personal or political) in the companies they placed into liquidation. If they did, it must have been too small to consider the alternatives.

It would require that the government make entirely unsentimental decisions on which companies are to be invested in, which are to be closed down after investment, and which are to be left to die. Not an easy decision under the best of circumstances.

I can't get into politics, save to say...The government was in front of the TV promoting THEIR bailout (in the form of fear), more times in the last week than we saw him/them (on TV) the whole of the last year.
I know what's going on here and even I was nervous. If you want someone to believe, just jeep repeating the same things over and over.

Your statement above adds more fuel to my fire because what they are doing now IS sentimental. Sentiment has to be taken out of the equation. The government are supposed to do the right thing for us, the tax payers, don't you think? Take over, kick the bums out, break up the companies in pieces if necessary and manage the companies the way they should have been managed in the first place.

The irony is that, according to reporting, a huge majority of people who called or emailed in are against the bailout as it stands. This, they say, is what killed the bill Monday.


Brian

 

[MoeCizlak]

This is great stuff guys. Big thanks for shedding some light on what's going on. I was listening to a sydicated morning show this morning and they had Rep. James Clyburn on and he was talking about a deal that was struck between the two parties concerning the bailout. I'm posting this not to criticize one party or the other, but rather as a commentary on politics as a whole. Clyburn said that this deal involved half of the Democrats voting in favor of the bill and half of the Republicans voting in favor of it in order to get some legislation passed. This outraged me to no end and about caused me to drive my car into a ditch. What I took away from the explanation of this "deal" was that regardless of how these individuals felt about the bill, they were being told to vote a certain way. That means that they are basically abandoning their constituency and to me that is unforgivable. I know that this is not the first time nor will it be the last time, but to me this abhorrent.

 

[LilBastage]

This is great stuff guys. Big thanks for shedding some light on what's going on. I was listening to a sydicated morning show this morning and they had Rep. James Clyburn on and he was talking about a deal that was struck between the two parties concerning the bailout. I'm posting this not to criticize one party or the other, but rather as a commentary on politics as a whole. Clyburn said that this deal involved half of the Democrats voting in favor of the bill and half of the Republicans voting in favor of it in order to get some legislation passed. This outraged me to no end and about caused me to drive my car into a ditch. What I took away from the explanation of this "deal" was that regardless of how these individuals felt about the bill, they were being told to vote a certain way. That means that they are basically abandoning their constituency and to me that is unforgivable. I know that this is not the first time nor will it be the last time, but to me this abhorrent.

Each side needs cover. If this fails neither party wants to have it come back and bite them. It tells me the chances of it not working are greater than the chances of it working.

It's chock full of goodies now. This was my main concern with the government getting involved in this whole thing in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems no other entity is willing or able to step in. We the people can't really do a whole hell of a lot about the way our representatives vote. Sure we can make calls, but short of voting the bums out, that's it. How many incumbents lose no matter how unhappy the people are? Very few. People HATE Congress right now as a whole, but I'd wager to say that most people think THEIR representatives are doing just fine.

Term limits are needed, but who's going to vote themselves off of the gravy train?

This is headed in a bad direction. I'm going to back out now...

 

[grateful1]

The fall out.....

1 in 5 auto dealers will be out of business this fall.

No money to lend...higher interest rates. Hmmm!

What I thought about this afternoon was the fact that we built up more debt without having a payment plan.

In speaking with a co-worker we discussed the fact that by next summer we'll e slowing down more.

Right now large companies still have budgets and money to spend....to a degree.

When next years plans are out.....a lot less will be spent and the market will be dropping.

 

[Mike33]

This is great stuff guys. Big thanks for shedding some light on what's going on. I was listening to a sydicated morning show this morning and they had Rep. James Clyburn on and he was talking about a deal that was struck between the two parties concerning the bailout. I'm posting this not to criticize one party or the other, but rather as a commentary on politics as a whole. Clyburn said that this deal involved half of the Democrats voting in favor of the bill and half of the Republicans voting in favor of it in order to get some legislation passed. This outraged me to no end and about caused me to drive my car into a ditch. What I took away from the explanation of this "deal" was that regardless of how these individuals felt about the bill, they were being told to vote a certain way. That means that they are basically abandoning their constituency and to me that is unforgivable. I know that this is not the first time nor will it be the last time, but to me this abhorrent.

Each side needs cover. If this fails neither party wants to have it come back and bite them. It tells me the chances of it not working are greater than the chances of it working.

It's chock full of goodies now. This was my main concern with the government getting involved in this whole thing in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems no other entity is willing or able to step in. We the people can't really do a whole hell of a lot about the way our representatives vote. Sure we can make calls, but short of voting the bums out, that's it. How many incumbents lose no matter how unhappy the people are? Very few. People HATE Congress right now as a whole, but I'd wager to say that most people think THEIR representatives are doing just fine.

Term limits are needed, but who's going to vote themselves off of the gravy train?

This is headed in a bad direction. I'm going to back out now...

There are term limits.....they're called elections. I can't remember where I heard that, but it always stuck with me as being true...

Anyways, just a general thought about what congress is doing now and I agree with you on this. Neither side wants this...but more importantly neither side wants the blame that would go along with this if it fails. More importantly, neither party wants this hung on them just several weeks from election day. Like you said both sides are looking for cover and that is the only way this thing is going to pass. In the end, they are going to have to pass it and we are going to have to accept it. Like it or not, its a better option than to sit back and let the market try and sort this out (that would be ironic huh?).

Last observation and I agree with you totally on what you said about congress as well; everyone says they hate congress and congress generally has an approval rating of ~30-40% no matter who is in the majority. Yet remarkably, ~96% of congress is reelected in any given election. Everyone apparently hates congress, but loves their guy/gal lol...

 

[LilBastage]

This is great stuff guys. Big thanks for shedding some light on what's going on. I was listening to a sydicated morning show this morning and they had Rep. James Clyburn on and he was talking about a deal that was struck between the two parties concerning the bailout. I'm posting this not to criticize one party or the other, but rather as a commentary on politics as a whole. Clyburn said that this deal involved half of the Democrats voting in favor of the bill and half of the Republicans voting in favor of it in order to get some legislation passed. This outraged me to no end and about caused me to drive my car into a ditch. What I took away from the explanation of this "deal" was that regardless of how these individuals felt about the bill, they were being told to vote a certain way. That means that they are basically abandoning their constituency and to me that is unforgivable. I know that this is not the first time nor will it be the last time, but to me this abhorrent.

Each side needs cover. If this fails neither party wants to have it come back and bite them. It tells me the chances of it not working are greater than the chances of it working.

It's chock full of goodies now. This was my main concern with the government getting involved in this whole thing in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems no other entity is willing or able to step in. We the people can't really do a whole hell of a lot about the way our representatives vote. Sure we can make calls, but short of voting the bums out, that's it. How many incumbents lose no matter how unhappy the people are? Very few. People HATE Congress right now as a whole, but I'd wager to say that most people think THEIR representatives are doing just fine.

Term limits are needed, but who's going to vote themselves off of the gravy train?

This is headed in a bad direction. I'm going to back out now...

There are term limits.....they're called elections. I can't remember where I heard that, but it always stuck with me as being true...

Anyways, just a general thought about what congress is doing now and I agree with you on this. Neither side wants this...but more importantly neither side wants the blame that would go along with this if it fails. More importantly, neither party wants this hung on them just several weeks from election day. Like you said both sides are looking for cover and that is the only way this thing is going to pass. In the end, they are going to have to pass it and we are going to have to accept it. Like it or not, its a better option than to sit back and let the market try and sort this out (that would be ironic huh?).

Last observation and I agree with you totally on what you said about congress as well; everyone says they hate congress and congress generally has an approval rating of ~30-40% no matter who is in the majority. Yet remarkably, ~96% of congress is reelected in any given election. Everyone apparently hates congress, but loves their guy/gal lol...

The second bold statement is why I don't accept the first. I believe the latest numbers show Congress at about 17-18% approval and most of them will be back.

We need hard term limits for Congress. I know people say "how dare you deny me my right to vote for my guy!" but we do just that every time a President finishes his 2nd term. Our government has grown too large and is full of too many career politicians for it to work in the best interests of the people. It seems that the checks and balances no longer work.

I'm afraid I've taken this thread off track and I apologize. This is teetering very close to breaking one of our primary rules and I don't want to go in this direction any longer. If we could please get back to talking about the current financial situation I would appreciate it. I think I'm going to bow out. I do appreciate the civility shown thus far. I guess there are some adults left on the internet.

 

[grateful1]

Personal Finance Management and Planning

Just to help us get back on trace...this thread is about the market and its ups and downs.

 

[LilBastage]

Personal Finance Management and Planning

Just to help us get back on trace...this thread is about the market and its ups and downs.

Thank you, sir!

 

[Mike33]

This is great stuff guys. Big thanks for shedding some light on what's going on. I was listening to a sydicated morning show this morning and they had Rep. James Clyburn on and he was talking about a deal that was struck between the two parties concerning the bailout. I'm posting this not to criticize one party or the other, but rather as a commentary on politics as a whole. Clyburn said that this deal involved half of the Democrats voting in favor of the bill and half of the Republicans voting in favor of it in order to get some legislation passed. This outraged me to no end and about caused me to drive my car into a ditch. What I took away from the explanation of this "deal" was that regardless of how these individuals felt about the bill, they were being told to vote a certain way. That means that they are basically abandoning their constituency and to me that is unforgivable. I know that this is not the first time nor will it be the last time, but to me this abhorrent.

Each side needs cover. If this fails neither party wants to have it come back and bite them. It tells me the chances of it not working are greater than the chances of it working.

It's chock full of goodies now. This was my main concern with the government getting involved in this whole thing in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems no other entity is willing or able to step in. We the people can't really do a whole hell of a lot about the way our representatives vote. Sure we can make calls, but short of voting the bums out, that's it. How many incumbents lose no matter how unhappy the people are? Very few. People HATE Congress right now as a whole, but I'd wager to say that most people think THEIR representatives are doing just fine.

Term limits are needed, but who's going to vote themselves off of the gravy train?

This is headed in a bad direction. I'm going to back out now...

There are term limits.....they're called elections. I can't remember where I heard that, but it always stuck with me as being true...

Anyways, just a general thought about what congress is doing now and I agree with you on this. Neither side wants this...but more importantly neither side wants the blame that would go along with this if it fails. More importantly, neither party wants this hung on them just several weeks from election day. Like you said both sides are looking for cover and that is the only way this thing is going to pass. In the end, they are going to have to pass it and we are going to have to accept it. Like it or not, its a better option than to sit back and let the market try and sort this out (that would be ironic huh?).

Last observation and I agree with you totally on what you said about congress as well; everyone says they hate congress and congress generally has an approval rating of ~30-40% no matter who is in the majority. Yet remarkably, ~96% of congress is reelected in any given election. Everyone apparently hates congress, but loves their guy/gal lol...

The second bold statement is why I don't accept the first. I believe the latest numbers show Congress at about 17-18% approval and most of them will be back.

We need hard term limits for Congress. I know people say "how dare you deny me my right to vote for my guy!" but we do just that every time a President finishes his 2nd term. Our government has grown too large and is full of too many career politicians for it to work in the best interests of the people. It seems that the checks and balances no longer work.

I'm afraid I've taken this thread off track and I apologize. This is teetering very close to breaking one of our primary rules and I don't want to go in this direction any longer. If we could please get back to talking about the current financial situation I would appreciate it. I think I'm going to bow out. I do appreciate the civility shown thus far. I guess there are some adults left on the internet.

I just thought it was a funny and insightful quote :thumbs:

 

[MoeCizlak]

I know I am putting this in far too simplistic terms, but I can't help likening the current issue of a bailout to parenting. If I didn't let my children suffer the consequences of their bad behavior, they are never going to learn not to do that kind of stuff. I think I have the two greatest kids in the world but on occasion they screw up. They're kids. We've missed birthday parties, taken away toys, you name it all in the hope that when they reach adulthood they will think twice before doing something that will land them in a heap of trouble. Someone, I believe #1, posted that if we let this corporate mismanagement and outright fraud go unpunished, this behavior will simply get repeated. I wholeheartedly agree with this. I know the result would be bad (and I hope those of you with knowledge and insight would let us know how bad) but couldn't we all learn a lesson about living within our means from this that would strengthen us? Would The Greatest Generation have been so without going through the Depression? Move over a bit Alan, I'm sitting on the sideline with you from here on out. Pass the lighter please.

 

[Marco-Polo]

That's why I think that the treasury should pay market, then invest in equity in the firms they want to keep alive. In the end, the responsibility falls on the owners - the stockholders. Wiping them out is the fair and just thing to do - even if 99% of stockholders didn't actively participate in proxies, AGMs, and the like, the owner takes the risk and assumes the reward.

And yes, I do own stock. I am A-OK with losing part of my investment if need be. I took the risk, after all.

Part of the issue is that we, collectively, believe more in individual responsibility than collective responsibility. And it works well in small, coherent groups - CP is a testament to that. In large groups, it doesn't work so well. Not that there aren't ethical individuals in every large group, but the vast majority will flow towards wherever the incentives are.

If the incentives are cutting questionable loans, they'll do that. If they're insider trading, they'll do that. If they're contaminating food products with melamine - they'll do that too. Calling the guilty parties bad apples doesn't give us the luxury of assuming that it won't happen again.

 

[Marco-Polo]

As for voting patterns - I do know a little about this, from spending an ungodly amount of time with a RNCC operator over the last two years. (If any RNCC insiders are on CP, you know who I'm talking about)

People vote based on two decisions. First, are they like me, culturally - as in, do they have the same core set of beliefs, or do they acknowledge the validity of my set of beliefs. Second, are they likely to do a good job, have they demonstrated competence, what's their track record. We can see this happening in social forums as well - just think of how well a non-smoker would do on cigarpass .

Part of the slide in the political system is that parties have become increasingly adept at forcing the first of these decisions and hiding the second. Competence has become secondary to culture, with the two parties representing diverging world-views. The time spent evaluating candidates, parties, and policies has also diminished, so branding has become more and more powerful as a cognitive short-cut.

The end result is that people tend to vote - not exclusively, but as a generality - straight ticket. They tend to socialize with people who also vote with them, which reinforces and legitimizes this decision. And they view policies with this endorser effect in mind. The goal of the political tactician is to fight the election on the basis of identification, not interests, and one party in particular has been much better at it than the other. And this is why getting elected has nothing to do with competence, nothing to do with personal or collective interest on the part of the voters, and nothing at all to do with policy.

 

[Shooter]

Written in 1999 I did the underlining



NYT 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086781/postshttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086781/posts
The New York Times |September 30, 1999 | By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants

 

[AVB]

While I tend to disagree with the straight ticket part, even more so today then even 10 years ago although it was pretty true 30 years ago and before. I do have to pass on something my Great Grandfather told me. "The most dangerous people in America are those who vote straight party, it shows that they don't care enough to pick the better man"

The end result is that people tend to vote - not exclusively, but as a generality - straight ticket. They tend to socialize with people who also vote with them, which reinforces and legitimizes this decision. And they view policies with this endorser effect in mind. The goal of the political tactician is to fight the election on the basis of identification, not interests, and one party in particular has been much better at it than the other. And this is why getting elected has nothing to do with competence, nothing to do with personal or collective interest on the part of the voters, and nothing at all to do with policy.

 

[LilBastage]

Is this a matter of no plan causing some pain now that's over in a few months to a year or the passing of the plan causing greater pain later that may last for a longer period of time?

If that's the case and there's pain to be had either way, I think I'm coming back around to "let's get it over with sooner rather than later" without a plan.

This is really starting to make my head spin. I don't know what to think anymore. ???

 

[Infinity]

Is this a matter of no plan causing some pain now that's over in a few months to a year or the passing of the plan causing greater pain later that may last for a longer period of time?

If that's the case and there's pain to be had either way, I think I'm coming back around to "let's get it over with sooner rather than later" without a plan.

This is really starting to make my head spin. I don't know what to think anymore. ???

LOL

We are soon going to know, one way or another, whether this bailout is beneficial. Regardless of what average Joe is urging his representative to do, this, although perceived to be all about average Joe, is NOT and his request is not taken into account by many representatives.

So what's it all about?

They now have a new bill, 1,000 pages with a shit load of nonsensical crap thrown in, to, as they say, sweeten the pot. This bill is worse than the one they had on Monday.

The fundamental principles are still not being addressed and that is...why are the Dicks who run these companies not paying for their mismanagement? Some are calling this criminal! The way the bill is written,
the Dicks will still get their Million dollar salaries and, get this, still be running their companies. This is not right!

Why are these Dicks being protected, not even a slap across the hand...business as usual.

Brian