Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

We need a better name for this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please see section below titled Talk:Proposed_bailout_of_United_States_financial_system#Change article's name? for further discussion. Ronnotel (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This name isn't terribly intuitive - this plan is mostly referred to as "the bailout". I'm worried people coming to Wikipedia won't find this very easily. Of course, if the goal is to have this article solely cover the Paulson plan in its original form, and have another article for the plan that actually gets passed by Congress, I would be OK with this article keeping the current name. Otherwise, though, this name is too limited. Perhaps something more on the line of "Bailout of U.S. financial system (2008)", which is an article I suggested to be merged here - but maybe we should go the other direction! --JaGatalk 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the rename. I'll implement instead of redirecting the other article. Ronnotel (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The revised title Bailout of U.S. financial system (2008) title suffers from excessive vagueness and generality, and since the plan is in process and unapproved, not an action or a law, rather speculative. We may need a better interim title.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Paulson Plan? -84user (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)- Hmmm, seemed there was a Paulson Plan in March. Maybe Paulson Wall St. rescue plan as used by Reuters? Or something with "Bank rescue"? Or just wait a day to see what happens? Personally I prefer the word rescue to bailout which (to me) invokes the idea of something leaving the financial system. -84user (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to start associating the proposed legislation with Paulson's name. If that's what the press ends up calling it then great. But for now, the most common way for people to find this page is to google on the term Bailout. I know I tried to find this page when it was called Paulson financial rescue plan and failed. Ronnotel (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not call it US financial system crisis of 2008. It is entirely plausible that the bailout does not go through. On the other hand if the bailout does go through, we would have to change the name of the article. Mpondopondo (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I take your point. However I think it's absolutely vital to have an article with the term Bailout in the title. That's what people will be looking for given the avalanche of news articles describing it. Ronnotel (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Like Ronnotel, when I first looked for this article, I searched for "bailout" and didn't find it. The article should have a name close to what the press is calling it so people can find it in their searches. At least, for now, while everything is uncertain. --JaGatalk 19:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I originally picked the name "Paulson financial rescue plan" because it was neutral. In coming up with the original name, I felt that using the word "bailout" in the title was inherently biased in favour of those arguing against the plan, at a key time when it was being debated.Deet (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. However, there is a smattering of references to a Paulson plan in the media, far outweighed by references to a bailout. We obligated to use the most common term, even if it seems like there are more neutral terms available. See WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name for naming policy. Ronnotel (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I decided otherwise due to WP:NAME#Controversial_names. The media may be exhibiting media bias in the United States regarding this issue. I am not claiming they are inherently left wing but the media in general does like a good controversy to sell papers, so I discount your argument. I believe we should rename to "TARP" or its full name -- if I had known it at the time I would have used it, and just made the other plan components tag along mentions -- beside "bailout" is just too non-specific. Deet (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the policy you cite reads The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. This seems like a pretty clear indication we should retain the word Bailout, which is roughly 40x more prevelant in a Google News search than TARP or alternatives. Ronnotel (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess we just disagree. You think Google rules the world, while I maintain that we have introduced a bias into the title. Deet (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Remind me why bailout is biased in favour of those arguing against the plan. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't prove it is biased or not... everyone can make their own judgement. I think you will find those opposed typically referring to it as such more frequently than those in support (Bush, etc). And the word is contentious to others also: "This isn't about a bailout of Wall Street, it's a buy-in, so that we can turn our economy around," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif[1] Deet (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your "I think you will find . . ." and Pelosi's comments just aren't solid enough arguments imo. Bailout is already an established word in WP so if it's so biased then that article should be renamed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the original 3-page Paulson's plan was called "Legislative Proposal for Treasury Authority To Purchase Mortgage-Related Assets", you can Google it, but I think that plan's dead. --Voidvector (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose the view that the word "proposed" be removed, fwiw. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It appears not one of the above knows that redirects will get you to the article in question. already the Troubled Asset Relief Program gets anyone to this article. It's a redirect. Try searching for it on google. I propose we name the article after the legislation in question. It will have that name eventually, when it is passed. The title is, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and someone has started on the title already. I think there's a merge request coming.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The new name is "United States financial system bailout"? I'm not sure I like that. It's still proposed, and this probably isn't the only bailout that will ever happen in US history. I'd prefer to go back to the original name. Eventually, we should rename this to whatever the final bill is called, but considering the turmoil the bill is in (the House just rejected it) I think we should wait until we have a more final version - like, after it's sent to Pres. Bush (if that happens). --JaGatalk 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "2008" should, at the very least, appear. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This change was not discussed and there is no consensus for it. Change it back? Ronnotel (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think so. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, "U.S." should be changed to "United States". Gary King (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It should. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I moved it. Gary King (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well, as long as you two agree I guess that's all that matters. Deet (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm (at least temporarily) moving the article to 2008 United States economic relief propositions, as the current title is not in a historical context. If someone has a better name in mind, by all means rename it again; or build further consensus here.   — C M B J   01:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not move this page without discussing it here first. The page has already been through a ridiculous number of moves today. --JaGatalk 01:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have set move protection to admin-only for now but will entertain any consensus request for a page move. Ronnotel (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The current title is inappropriate for several reasons. Firstly, a date is not specified. Second, the current name can be mistakenly interpreted as an implication that there was a proposed bailout of the entire U.S. financial system; a very dangerous statement to make regarding a matter this serious, especially as the related bill was rejected. Third, there have been alternative proposals — and we certainly haven't heard the end of the matter.
I certainly do not make a habit of renaming pages without consensus, and while I did this in good faith, I apologize for acting presumptuously. However, for reasons of accountability, I must continue to reaffirm the urgency in determining an appropriate name for this particular article. It would be irresponsible of us to allow this article to improperly influence Wall Street tomorrow by means of misinformation.
On a side note, the content of the entire article is very close to becoming a sensational content fork of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.   — C M B J   03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
@CMBJ, the rationale for using the term Bailout in the article title is that it is by far the most identifiable term to describe the situation. An overwhelming number of hits in Google News, etc. As above, WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name compels us to the use the article title that is most easily found by a new reader. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but the argument should be based on relevant and superseding policies. Ronnotel (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear. That's not even the part of the name I'm concerned about — bailout is fine. What originally caught my attention was that the article did not specify a date. After further examination, I became substantially concerned with how a less savvy individual could infer a much more catastrophic image from the current title. Proposed bailout of United States financial system, combined with the fact that it failed, could be misinterpreted as something akin to the Great Depression. We don't want to cause someone to go out and break the bank tomorrow, or cause a series of chain reactions. Do you understand what I'm getting at?   — C M B J   04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps changing financial system to financial industry would be an acceptable interim solution at this point in time? Do also keep in mind that the recent colloquial use of the term bailout has almost exclusively been used in reference to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, whereas this article must be more abstract if it should continue to independently coexist.   — C M B J   04:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(Rm indent) We seriously need to get "2008" into the title. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change article's name?

There has been a strong interest in the name of this article, including a number of undiscussed moves. I have recently protected the page from moves while this issue is discussed. If you have a proposed name, please add it here along with a brief, policy-supported argument. I'll start with the two suggestions still being discussed above. Feel free to amend my placeholder reason if this is your proposal. Ronnotel (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Title: Proposed bailout of United States financial system (i.e. no change)

  • Reason: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  • Support:
  • Current name is fine for now. Whole article is likely to remain fluid for the rest of the week, no reason to try to nail something too perfect down given the changes likely down the road. Townlake (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Townlake. A better name will be obvious in a few days, but not today. I would like to see a year in the final name though. --JaGatalk 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I favor retaining term Bailout in all cases per WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name. Ask 10 people what they would call this event, and I reckon all 10 would use the term "Bailout" in their answer. Let's keep WP friendly and useful. Ronnotel (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for a week or more and change to the name of the bill that gets finally passed or rejected when that occurs.
    Create redirects to this page for any and all other candidate names, so that search engines will point to this article.
    See the discussion at: Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008#Article Merger -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose:
This title is inappropriate for several reasons.
  • It does not specify a date. There have historically been other U.S. bailouts, and will undoubtedly be more in the future. (See here.) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) specifies that "If these descriptors [where, what] are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, a third descriptor [when] should be added."
  • Proposed bailout of United States '''financial system'' may imply that the entire U.S. financial system is subject to bailout. While this may be indirectly true in some sense, it would still be murky water in accordance with WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL; and I'm additionally concerned that this could unintentionally influence a naive individual's financial decisions.
  • The name is based on colloquial use of the term bailout, which which I don't generally see as a problem, except for the fact that two articles about one topic cannot independently coexist. This article must establish more abstract ideas than Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or else be merged with it.
I'm a little surprised to see that this name has lasted this long.   — C M B J   19:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The whole reason that US politicians are considering a hastily-written 700 BILLION dollar legislation proposal is because we are being warned that the financial system will collapse. The proposed legislation is not simply supposed to be fixing a problem, it is supposed to be bailing out an urgent, impending financial system collapse, or at least that is how it has been framed to the public. In that sense, the title is fairly accurate. MPS (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It is undoubtedly true that the U.S. financial system will be affected as a direct result of whether or not a bailout is issued. However, the system itself would be an indirect and second-tier beneficiary. Either view may be held as correct, depending on which form of logic is applied. It seems to be generally agreed upon that a better title will evolve in the near future, but I would still support opting to select the least sensational form at this point in time.   — C M B J   01:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The current title would be appropriate only if the bailout were being financed by financial institutions outside the US. I propose it be changed to: Proposed bailout of Wall Street (US) Djg2006 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Title: Proposed bailout of United States financial system (2008)

  • Reason: qualifies the event by year
  • Support:
  • Oppose:
  • Parenthetical terms are stylistically undesirable, so we reply on them as a means of disambiguating multiple articles that otherwise would have the same title, not a method of conveying additional information purely for the sake of conveying it. If the year is to be included in the title, it should be a part of the actual phrase (e.g. 2008 United States financial system bailout proposals). —David Levy 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Too vague, much larger than the proposals under discussion. Proposals are preventative. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    If it's a question of style then fix the style. I'm just in favour of having "2008" in the title. What exactly are you saying, Yellowdesk? How does adding "2008" into the title make it more vague? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    The current title with our without a year are too general and vague. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    I find it remarkable then, that you supported the current title. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Title: Emergency legislation proposals to address the United States Economic crisis of 2008

  • Reason: see below
  • Support
  • I like the term "Emergency legislation proposals" and I like that there is an article related to the crisis that it seeks to avert; i.e., Economic crisis of 2008... and that it deals with the US. I like that it does not use the term "bailout" which is sometimes contentious. Using this format, we could theoretically see Emergency legislation proposals to address the German Economic crisis of 2008. ... or Emergency legislation proposals to address ... the some other problem or crisis Even if you disagree with my title vote I think the reasons I am using might be helpful to the eventual name pick. MPS (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but I am uncomfortable with this method of everyone proposing their own title and then asking people to vote on theirs. If this is truly a collaborative project then this should be a conversational thread, not a vote. I think we should reason out what we think are the right kinds of titles and then go from there. Perhaps I am missing 'the way it is done on wikipedia nowadays.' Your comments? MPS (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'm sure whoever refactored my comment did it with the best of intentions, and I'm not going to undo it, but this whole "vote on every option" setup seems like needless process-for-process'-sake that unproductively divides the dialogue. Townlake (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps something along the lines of Proposed legislation to address the United States economic crisis of 2008 - or - Legislative proposals to address the United States economic crisis of 2008?   — C M B J   01:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes I like dropping 'Emergency' since the title already implies it's a crisis. ... now one more thing I noticed upon reflection... maybe 'United States' should come earlier, since it's not just a US crisis, but a US legislation... something like Proposed United States legislation to address the economic crisis of 2008. Either way I would be satisfied. I am also not opposed to leaving it like it is but if we are going to change it this is the direction I would want to go. MPS (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the news seems to be talking about a "mortgage rescue plan" or a "financial rescue plan"... could incorporate those words as well. MPS (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  • If a bill gets passed, all of the proposals will fall into the history of that one act/enactment. Keep the current title in preference to one that will change twice. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Currently, if someone is going to search to find the article on this proposal they will most likely use the term bailout. Renaming it without that word in the title makes it inappropriately difficult to find for users JGonzo (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The thing that gets me is that this whole page will just turn into a small section and a couple of footnotes to another article once the final bill is adopted. The current title of the article contains assured obsolescence. NJGW (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - How about United States legislative efforts to address the financial crisis of 2007–2008 or United States legislative efforts to address the economic crisis of 2007–2008?   — C M B J   21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: THIS ARCHIVE IS THE TALK PAGE OF THE FORMER ARTICLE ENTITLED
"Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008"
That article was moved to Proposed bailout of United States financial system and converted to a redirect.
The talk page was deleted in the process. The final talk page before the move is reproduced below.

For history of the moves, and this copy of the talk page, see Admin Ronnotel's edit history in relation to the two articles.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Article merger

The proposal is to combine all content related to topic describing the events leading up to the bill, and legislative negotiation, and news content and commentary in one place. The sensible place to do so is at the name of the bill as stated in the text of the bill. Merge Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system (2008) into the surviving article name Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 It appears since the text of this article is copied from the bill summary itself, there's not much lost by blanking this article and moving to this title, with the aid of an admin.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Though the proposal, structured as an amendment to an unrelated bill was not accepted, it's clear that the topic will come before both houses again. The proposal will continue to be the vehicle of further legislative action, as an inspection of news articles of the day reveals. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Chronology
  • The House vehicle for the legislation was an amendment to H.R. 3997 on September 29, 2008. The amendment was not accepted.
  • The Senate vehicle on October 1, 2008 is to amend HR1424, by voting to substitute the language of HR1424 with the revised text of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.[1]
  • With the Senate acceptance of the amendment, and subsequent passing of the amended bill, HR 1424 was sent to the House for consideration.[2]
  • The bill, HR1424, was acted on by the House and voted on October 3 by 263-171 to enact the bill into law.[2][3]
  1. ^ Amendment to HR 1424 ( the amendment being the text of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (October 1, 2008) ( Retrieved October 1, 2008). See also the Senate Committee on Banking access page for the legislation: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
  2. ^ a b "H.R.1424". THOMAS. Library of Congress. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2008-10-01. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (Access to legislative history of H.R. 1424)
  3. ^ Herszenhorn, David M. (2008-10-03). "House Approves Bailout on Second Try". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-03. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Approve the merger
  • In favor of the merger (or move) as the proposer. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In favor of moving (renaming) Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system (2008) to Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and deleting this page. This is the proper title for the bill and it's background —Preceding unsigned comment added by Work permit (talk • contribs) 06:26, September 29, 2008
  • Yes, that makes sense.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In favor as the proposed E.E.S.A seems likely to play a role in future discussions of this topic.
  • 'In favor That looks like it will be the official name for the bailout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.126.142 (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the merger, with the qualification that the article should not be merged until after the proposed legislative act becomes law; i.e., after the US President signs whatever comes out of the sausage grinder today. Also, I think it is wise to copy the entire merged article in, as suggested by the one vote against the merge, then clean up in subsequent edits. N2e (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In Favor of the merger. --146.115.122.89 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In favor of the merger Grundle2600 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In favor of the merger: "Proposed bailout of United States financial system" isn't a very long-term title: The specific name for the act might not be a good choice either, though, if the final bill has a different name. Perhaps we could go with something like "2008 Financial crisis rescue package"? Maratanos (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In favour I generally support centralizing information during fast-moving events so that edits can become part of the article quickly, and good information quickly rises to the fore. This is a clear-cut case in my view. Huadpe (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The word "bailout" should be avoided in the title of an article (colloq.), "Proposed" pushes the boundaries of speculation. It makes no sense to have a second article at this point. Merge to appropriate article-entity, the bill itself. Other material can end up in the final resting place of the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 article series.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In favour, seems logical. Acastus69 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge As I said in Talk:Liquidity crisis of September 2008; it seems like Liquidity crisis of September 2008, Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008, and Proposed_bailout_of_United_States_financial_system, among others, are really all aspects of the same central article/event- is there a reason to have a string of related, but underdeveloped articles, rather than one central strong article from which important features of these current events can be drawn once perspective is available. Darker Dreams (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. A "bailout" is a slang term. "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" is the actual technical legal term. However, it is not yet a law - just a bill. Perhaps, hold off until some measure by Congress has been passed. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. About the same thing. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. Seems logical. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 20:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Against the merger
  • Against. Usually part of the article gets dropped in the merger. Would be ok if total article is copied into a Lead_up_to_bill at bottom of article. Maybe the split should be Text_OF_Emergency_Economic_Stabilization and second article which is discussion of bailout. 71.131.15.18 (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Against. It's better to have a page on the actual text and substance of the act, and one on the proposed wider bailout in general. Little Professor (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Against, based exclusively on the defeat of the act in the title. A new act which passes might well be named differently, and the unexpected outcome of the House vote is noteworthy regardless of how the bailout proposals proceed. RandomP (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Against -- I agree that the topics should be merged someday but if anything EESA should be merged into Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system (2008). The EESA article was prematurely created... and as of today (29 Sep) the EESA is still 'proposed' and is in danger of not passing.([2]) MPS (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Against
    • both articles are rapidly changing -- this may be a poor time for a merge
    • The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is not the only proposed remedy for the 2008 US Financial system collapse now in progress (some pundits have proposed doing nothing, for example, and allowing the collapse).
    • There may be several Bills written (House and Senate) before an Act is eventually passed by one or both houses.
    • --SV Resolution(Talk) 23:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Against - EESA should be a section of the larger topic of the proposed bailout which has had many facets only one part of which (albeit a large part) was/is the EESA. Shadow007 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Against - At this point in time, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 has yet to materialize. It may not even happen, in which case "proposed bailout" is more appropriate. If Congress does end up passing a bill, maybe we could revisit this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysturns (talk • contribs) 11:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger, I think there have been multiple proposed bailouts which didn't make it into the act. The Paulsen plan was not part of the act although Congress used it as a starting point. One is broader than the other. gren グレン 12:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Failure of the legislation means this title is probably moot. The other article is far more visible. Ronnotel (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as the legislation failed, they are two separate issues. One is legislation and one is an ongoing debate. Scapler (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the other arguments above. Also, so it is clear we need two separate pages because they are two separate issues (this is the legislation, the other is the general debate and ideas about Paulson's plan), especially since the act failed anyway. It is also clear to me that "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the ongoing discussions. Deamon138 (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Against, keep discussion of text and discussion of its history seperate; too unweildy otherwise. However, I have to say the title Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system sounds more like tabloid newspaper headline slang than an encyclopedia article, perhaps both could be renamed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Text) and Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Background) Ex nihil (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  • Neutral — much of the content from Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system (2008) needs to be merged here, but there are alternatives to this bill that will need to be collectively discussed in a more abstract article.   — C M B J   02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The future of the bill is in doubt, and the bill will probably go through name changes on its journey through Congress. I'd like to wait until there's more certainty about the bill, and would then support the merge. We could also let this be a detailed look at the bill, with the "Proposed ..." article pointing here with a "main" template and having history, summary of the Paulson proposal, etc. --JaGatalk 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral At first it seemed an obvious merge, but from reading the comments it appears that it may be appropriate to have an article dealing with the overall issues of the rescue plan for the US financial crisis, while another one deals with the specifics of the Act proposed to restore confidence in the market. While elements of each article could be summarised in the other, that doesn't neccessarily mean both should be shoved together. Also, a large amount of the problem with Proposed bailout of United States financial system is to do with the name, but that is a different issue, and should be discussed under a proposed move of the name. I note the comments above that while all this is happening, it may be worth waiting to see what emerges, and that makes sense. SilkTork *YES! 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it would be premature to consider merging or restructuring these two articles today. The situation should be clearer in a few days time, and one of the problems of trying to catalogue contemporary history is that it is difficult to show how the outcomes arrive. Please reconsider this after the position is clearer. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments section of the Article

Needs to go ASAP. It's WP:OR. Grsztalk 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it adds nothing to this article. AndrewMcinally (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


"Unexpected"/"surprising"/"shock" rejection

I think it's quite a neutral statement to make that the rejection by the House was unexpected. People certainly did not expect it, either on the financial markets or in public statements. The UK Times goes with "shock", which is a bit newspaper-y.

I just heard a news claim that the stock market drop was the most sudden intraday plunge in history, so if we can find a ref for that, that would be a well-supported statement.

I do think it's omission not to point out in the lead paragraph that this very much was a surprise, went against the positions of the White House, both presidential candidates, the Treasury, the minority and majority leadership of the House, the committee ... if it's not a surprising rejection, what is?

RandomP (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it was "expected", but that would be POV in the other direction. 1. The phone calls to Senators were running 8 to 1 against depend on which poll you believe and this is re-election season. 2. The stock market correctly predicted it would not pass by dropping 300 points before the vote was taken. Better to just say "bill rejected" rather than "expected" or "unexpected", especially in the intro sentence. Also, we are already had a run on the bank (Washington Mutual) last week, even though we have FDIC insurance nowadays, so probably better to tone it down and not sensationalize. 71.131.31.84 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

CopyVio

I took this page at face value, and assumed it was the offical summary of the act, but it appears to be a summary by Marketwatch.com, which it appears here is copyrighted by Marketwatch. Other websites I have looked at on Google which mention this summary either have the copyright Marketwatch statement or have a direct link to the marketwatch website. I'd be interested in this article containing some of the Act with comments, and using the Marketwatch summary as a reference source, but it would clearly be wrong to simply copy Marketwatch's summary word for word, if that's what it is - and that's what it appears to be. I'll raise the issue on Wikipedia:Copyright problems for someone more experienced to have a look and put a tag on the page, just to be safe. SilkTork *YES! 11:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But didn't MarketWatch simply copy it verbatim from the bill itself? Perhaps all we really ought to do is change the reference. --JaGatalk 11:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It is definitely far shorter and the summary might be their own words. gren グレン 12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
That's the part that's unclear. Wording from the actual bill on Homeowner assistance: "IN GENERAL.To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate, including multifamily housing, the Federal property manager shall simplement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures."[3]. Wording from marketwatch: "EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans - many the result of predatory lending practices - wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes" [4]. it appears to me that there some language in the Marketwatch summary, which would not be governmental language - "predatory lending practices". But maybe that's acceptable language from an American government? SilkTork *YES! 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If this were an official governmentally-produced summary, it would be reasonable to conclude that the text would be far shorter (that's what a summary is supposed to do, after all), and use of terms such as "predatory lending practices" wouldn't be too unlikely by politicians: after all, a summary wouldn't have legal authority, so the proponents of the bill could word their summary as they saw fit. Of course, if this were a privately-produced summary, the same could be done, but I don't think the language by itself can prove that it's privately produced. 63.172.28.121 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the government text that the Marketwatch article copied. The text is in the public domain as a work of the United States Government.

See SUMMARY OF THE “EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008”: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/summary_of_the_eesa2.pdf Access to the page via the House Committee on Financial Services: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

voting

according to the site it says "Viewing the Govtrack.us statistics on this bill it should be noted that 15 House members did not vote on this bill. That is roughly 3% of the bill. To view how your Representative voted on this bill view the following link. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-671"

But here (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml) is on vote to the actual bill. The above 1517 was a vote to accept the senate version and discuss. (http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/lgwww_bill.pl?101517)

Here is the actual results: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml (only 1 did not vote) Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark to Market

There should be some mention here of how the bill is impacted by a controversy over mark-to-market or "fair value" accounting. The SEC/FASB relationship and all that. Where should we put such a discussion? --Christofurio (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim by Brad Sherman, D-CA, that plan is covertly set up to bail out foreign banks, not US

On Kudlow & Company on Sept 30 Brad Sherman, D-California stated the following


A discussion of the implications of this was presented the same night by Karl Denninger on YouTube[5]. Has there been any discussion of this in any of the Wikipedia articles related to the financial rescue plan? __meco (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Move warning

Following the recent house action, it has been proposed that this article be replaced with the text of Proposed bailout of the United States financial system. If you strongly object, now would be a good time to make that known. Ronnotel (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just make sure this talk page gets merged into the other talk page. I don't want my post above to be lost in the shuffle. __meco (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Btw, I have saved the last version of the page here in case anyone wants to pull any text an incorporate in current article. Ronnotel (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article has numerous sections which are either unsourced or poorly sourced. In particular, the "Criticisms" section. I propose deleting items listed as bullets in that section unless appropriate sourcing is provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 19:43, September 23, 2008

  • I have removed various items that had no indication of the speaker making the claim, and were without citation, and marked items where the speaker was claimed, but no source was cited. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Insurance-based Plan

Following the introduction yesterday by House Republicans of an alternative, insurance-based financial restoration plan, we should determine whether the emerging details of this new plan should be cataloged in a separate article or included as a part of this one. Additionally, if the details of this plan are included in this article, we should also consider whether or not the article's current title would be inclusive of this information or not.--JGonzo (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGonzo (talk • contribs)

There's only going to be one bailout but we don't know the details. It could be the Paulson proposal or it could be the House Republicans' alternative, or it could not pass at all... In short, I say add a section on the House Republican alternative. MPS (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed listing of names

The section "Officials/Lawmakers/Politicians" just listed the names of several politicians, with no statement of whether they supported or opposed some plan, and with no sources. The section would better be called "Views of Officials/Lawmakers/Politicians" and should state what plan they support or oppose, with a citation for each. Since various plans have emerged, including a radically different one from House Republicans from the seeming consensus of the day before, we must be specific about what the politician supports or opposes. Edison (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New intro

I have substantially revised the intro. The previous version was too focused on the initial version of the plan presented by Paulson and failed to define the main gist of the article. I think this version does a better job of summarizing the issue to a new reader. That said, it could probably stand a little more detail. Ronnotel (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I added "$700 billion" if that is OK with you.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Loans to banks for asset-backed commercial paper

"Individual investors lend money to money market funds,". I thought individual investors purchased shares of money market funds.SCFulton (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Like a deposit in a bank, a mutual fund purchase is a liability of the entity receiving the funds. The bank owes you your deposited funds, that you have "lent" to the bank. In that sense, the deposited funds are lent to a bank, or to money market fund. Money market funds are actually share purchases with the a right to demand a refund in exchange for the shares, so the details are somewhat different. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

outstanding effort

really great job on short notice. Cinnamon colbert (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, there's a great deal more here than even a detailed news search will turn up TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comments on this link

Some user keeps putting this link

with the reflist. I've removed it several times, and do not want to edit war over it any longer. Could someone please chime in on whether this should be kept? The current cycle of revert and re-revert is getting nowhere; I'm glad to defer this to consensus. --JaGatalk 08:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a marginal source, considering all that is available.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed. The term "neo-liberalism" in the title strikes me as the type of descriptor that will send people searching to find more neutral sources for the same info. Townlake (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cramer?

Seems odd to have only Jim Cramer commenting on this, considering the vast amount of commentary out there.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Opposition section

This section needs work. The bill failed in the house, so obviously there is more to the opposition than is being portrayed here. The current section states that a group of Republicans are opposing it. That is the Pelosi/Reid partisan line -- clearly biased. The Wall Street Journal states accurately that a "bipartisan" group opposed the bill. There's a lot of people from both parties who don't like this bill, and their views are not being expressed in this section. Wrad (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when it really comes down to it, this article is lacking in terms of opposition. The Repub revolt is barely mentioned, for instance. And the complaints against the bill aren't well organized - you have to pick them out from the section with polls and whatnot, and there's no distinction between Paulson proposal complaints and Congressional bill complaints. I would like to create a section about the original Paulson proposal, with its own subsection about objections (for instance, the "Constitutionality" section only applies to the Paulson proposal and shouldn't be confused with the bill now in Congress; a less-biased version of the Iraq War comparison could go here as well), and a section about the Congressional bill. This section could then have a subsection talking about opposition - mention the revolt, the protests, polls, etc. I just haven't got to it yet. --JaGatalk 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The word "many" is in the Opposition section a lot; seems to run afoul of WP:AWW given the vagueness of the reference. I don't want to step on toes by boldly messing with it myself; obviously there's already a lot of attention on this article, and I applaud everyone's efforts in keeping this so up to date. Townlake (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs Cleanup

I'm adding a cleanup tag to the 'criticisms' section. The content is poorly edited and needs to be expanded. Dkostic (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The section on Democratic Leaders' response to the Bailout plan are not accurate and should be removed or cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.126.169 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to Market Effects section

Under market effects, the spike in the price of oil had very little to do with the financial crisis - rather it was a squeeze where too many people were short and needed to buy contracts to clear their position before that specific months contracts expired. In fact, the impact of this crisis has largely been to put downward pressure on the price of oil.68.49.157.197 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No Incarceration Provisions

There is no provision for specific and draconian restrictions on staff and executive pay for the principals in this debacle. We need an entry on "Experimental Capitalism," as we prepare to write about this in some historical sense. Meanwhile, the FBI is combing the books as this develops and until we have a much clearer picture (specifically including the miscreants and how the frauds were hatched and committed), the tax payers spigot should remain in the full off position.

(comments irrelevant to the development of this article removed by an admin) Manning (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Need to add a time line section

We need a time line in table format like:

Date------ Time------- Event--------------------------- Reference link

----------- -------------------------------- --------------

09/25/2008 07:00PM EST Bush speech proposing bailout [13]

But I don't know how to do a table in wiki? Can somebody start it and I'll add to it as time permits. Thanks. 71.131.15.18 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a timeline would be great for this article. I'll look into it in a day or so if no one else has. --JaGatalk 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The easytimeline extension may help a bit? notice User A1 (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Add % of the congressmen, not voters

Could you please add in the beginning of the article the percentage of the Republicans (60% vs. 40%) and Democrats (67% 33%) who vote in favour and against the bill? Several media said that the Democrats voted against the bill - and this is not the full truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.88.50 (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean per cent of congressmen. The percent of voters is running 8 to 1 or 99 to 1 against wall street bailout depending on which newspaper poll you read. 71.131.24.107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

Market Reaction

The statement that the dollar fell vs. foriegn currnecy is incorrect. The dollar rose against everything, as would be logical since the government voted no to a bill which would increase debt. Also, the two links cited (50,51) are bad. 50 is from 9/22 and 51 does not work. This should be changed immediately. Rugz (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It was market reaction to the president's nationwide speech and the dollar did fall. You can check it at some of the currency trading websites. We need a timeline. see a few comments up about the time line proposal.71.131.24.107 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

-Role of the Democratic Party leadership

-The leaders of the Democratic Party, which holds the majority of seats in each of the chambers of the Congress, including the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barack Obama, who squarely placed the blame for the current crisis on the Republicans, have not presented any expertise, or proposed any solutions of their own, accepting instead negotiations on terms dictated by the Republican administration, including the substantive and timing issues, and satisfying themselves with fighting for relatively minor adjustments.


Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.236.143 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Prior to seeing the above comment I excised this entire paragraph as it is completely unreferenced and way too non-NPOV to be acceptable. Manning (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC editorial

An interesting outside opinion piece on this ---> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7643199.stm hope that helps. (Hypnosadist) 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

The opinions section seems rather problematic to me. It comes close to simply being an extention of the opposition section as nearly all the opinions seem to be in opposition. While there is definitely a lot of opposition, there is I'm pretty sure a lot of support too so it is unlikely to be balanced or NPOV Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Is this "invisible run on the banks" phrase justifiable?

The article makes the rather incendiary statement that large investors can make an "invisible run on the banks" by transferring their assets to Treasury bonds. But even the U.S. only has so much debt and so many Treasury bonds, doesn't it? So the shift of assets amounts to what, 0.1 or 0.2 percent change of the interest rates on these bonds, and then people start weighing the cost of a certain loss of interest income vs. some intangible risk of a global bank collapse - don't they? I don't see how this can be a "run on the banks" in the normal sense where all the money ends up being taken out in the end. Unless we see the interest rate on these bonds continue to fall, I would think that the "run" is already over.

Both Yahoo and Google news searches provide only one link to this "invisible run on the banks" phrase. If it is unfounded or exaggerated, then please, one of the experts on this, do something to balance this out, because if so this kind of talk surely is not helping things. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I heard Washington Mutual execs say on the radio that they ran out of money due to a slow withdrawal of money by depositors. 71.131.24.107 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Republicans come up with alternative plan, but article is locked

Republicans come up with alternative plan, but article is locked. I don't want to login at a public terminal to add. Anyone care to add it: http://www.house.gov/list/press/tx05_hensarling/rsc/092308PaulsonBailout.html 71.131.24.107 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we expand Alternatives section?

I'm new, but I would appreciate seeing the Alternatives section getting more structure and updates. There are a number of proposals out there in discussion, but Wikipedia could help to pull them together and add clarity.

I propose a structure with:

  • Title (we'll have to work on those)
  • Description
  • Key Supporters (e.g. Roubini, Kling, etc.)
  • Pros (arguments against, with links)
  • Cons (arguments for, with links) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agallsf (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reaction section(s) needed

I noticed that the Reaction section only seemed to contain reaction to the initial proposal by Paulson, with maybe some reaction to the negotiated proposal as well. Really, we need two or three "reaction" sections. One for the reaction to Paulson's initial proposal. Then a further one for the reaction to the negotiated plan that was put up to vote perhaps. And finally a reaction section is needed for reactions to the failure of the vote by the politicians (at the moment we only have a reaction by the markets on this). We could also do with a section at the end contemplating the future of the bill (I heard something about Thursday?). Anyway, help out if you can. Not sure how much I can do, but I'm making suggestions so others can follow through if I have less time. Deamon138 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

I've scanned this page looking for the discussion about page protection. At the moment I don't see the need for edit protection, but will defer to editor opinion prior to making any decision about removing it. Manning (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • There was some very minor POV by wiki volunteers which upset one guy. The page lock should be removed. 71.131.17.147 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the "biggest drop" in perspective

The text reads:

The House vote caused the Dow to drop over 777 points in a single day, its largest point drop ever

I feel this is unecessary hyperbole that lacks perspective, it should read:

The House vote caused the Dow to drop over 777 points in a single day, its largest nominal point drop ever


(The Dow has dropped over 7% many, many times over the past 100 years...this is nothing compared to 1987 or -gasp- 1929!)

Ligier Gitanes (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It is **NOT** the biggest percentage drop. This is spreading fear needlessly... This is supposed to be an encyclopedia!! 71.131.24.107 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
How is your statement any less hyperbole? In fact, how is the original statement hyperbole at all? It's true that it was the largest point drop ever, so why complain? Deamon138 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Journalists section copied from source

Someone needs to fix the Journalists section of the article. Almost all of the text in that section is simply copied from the source cited at the end of the paragraph, but it is not properly marked and/or described as a direct quote from that article. I'd fix it myself, but I don't have time right now. - dcljr (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Direct quotes are far better. If re-worded, the person who re-worded it can twist the words to his/her point of view on what the person really meant. I've seen some quotes removed and replaced with things the quoted person never said. BRAINedit (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's fault is this?

Is there anyone to blame regarding this crisis? Perhaps someone with more weight than others? Surely not Barney Frank... Polsei spoke so highly of him in her speech before the Bailout vote.

Oh, wait, here is a New York Times article from September 11, 2003... Hmmm....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

This should be included in the article, that Barney Frank BLATANTLY disregarded (along with other democrats) that Freddie and Fannie were in any kind of trouble. 75.40.204.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

See my comments at Talk:Liquidity_crisis_of_September_2008#Who.27s_fault_is_this.3F. Deamon138 (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
These two quotes i find very interesting are "And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios." which is what got us into this mess and "And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors." which has fed the first problem. (Hypnosadist) 08:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of first paragraph of "Reaction to the initial proposal" section

How would people feel about removing the paragraph from the "Reaction" section that starts "Sources have called this plan..."? This paragraph, especially the first sentence or so, has always leaned a bit heavy on POV without much actual content. The second paragraph, IMO, would be a better lead for the section. There is some decent content in that first paragraph but I can't imagine how to re-work it into the article. --JaGatalk 08:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


Scope includes proposed increase of FDIC deposit insurance to $250,000? =

Yesterday, both presidential candidates reportedly supported the increase in FDIC coverage to %250,000. I am not sure if this is part of the scope of this article. It is clearly related to the economic crisis but it may or may not be a separate piece of legislation from EESA or whatever eventual Paulson-related $700B package they put together. So should this article report on it? MPS (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Pleaase put it in the alternatives to bailout, since it is not sure it will be part of this wall street bailout. Thanks. 71.131.34.180 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another financier calls bailout a fraud

I don't have an account on wikip, so can somebody please add this informative article to the financiers' section: Tim McCormack (Chief Investment Officer, Alpha Titans, Santa Barbara, CA ) has posted an analysis of the bailout at the company's website. See "The Greatest $700 Billion Financial Hoax Ever Perpetrated" [6] and a second paper "A Violation of Public Trust and a Display of Professional Incompetence" see: [7] Thanks 71.131.17.147 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

done, but not by me--Nowa (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

October 1

Hello. Yesterday I telephoned three districts of the Federal Reserve and one librarian kindly replied but we ran out of time. Any ideas you may have with the figures for the FOMC(sp?) budget and the two or more forms of U.S. debt would be most helpful. I'll try to look a bit more today but because I am inclined to think the healthy markets and healthy banks are healthy and that the crisis is a temporary state of mind, it might be a while. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The Federal Open Market Committee activities are unrelated to any budget approved by Congress, and any of their actions will not add any coherence to conversations about national debt or annual deficit. The Fed is an independent off budget self-funding entity. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • But the Fed sets interest rates for the discount window to major banks, presently 2.25%. In past stock market drops and liquidity crisises, the fed would lower interest rates. The lower interest rates filter through to adjustable mortgages and help stop foreclosures and stimulate the general economy. I don't understand why they have not lowered the rates since April, 2008? The fed lowering rates should be first in any Alternatives To Bailout section, since that is the fed's job. See US federal discount rate chart: [8] Thanks. 71.131.34.180 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
To Yellowdesk. OK. This is a third try from Bloomberg so it's probably right. I got bogged down in the board of governors' press release but likely the total is in there. Today I read some idea, by whom I don't know, to ask Ms. Bair, a woman from Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), to step in for Dr. Bernanke and perhaps Mr. Paulson on some of the bailout. I no longer am sure how neutral these sources are but hope this helps. Thank you again for your help earlier. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Also the 9th district public affairs office called back. No idea if Boston or New York did and decided against voicemail or if there was some mixup--I think they were media relations and they are no doubt very busy this week. At federalreserve.gov there is a section about statistics and economic research and an H41(sp?) report. I plan to watch the U.S. vice presidential debate instead. Maybe later or maybe this information will help somebody else. Thanks again and best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008/Archive_1&oldid=1091475619"