Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cramer's TV Show, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC. Parent to get millions from bailout. Undisclosed conflict of interest

The parent company, General Electric, Cramer's TV Show, NBC News, MSNBC, CNBC, Today Show, Bartoromo show, and more owns GE Capital and other GE Financial companies. They are ball park range of about 0.5% to 4% of the credit market. If the $700B wall street bailout is distributed somewhat equally by Paulson, that would give GE $3,500 Million to $28,000 Million from the bailout. Why don't quotes and cites from Cramer and other CNBC quotes say, this person is employed by a company that will potentially receive millions or billions from the bailout which is a conflict of interest? This should be added, but the article is locked. 71.131.4.248 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Small business venture capitalist against bailout

The small busisness venture capitalist firm GrowThink has posted it's finaciers view of the wall street bailout at their website. see article: 'The Bailout: 4 Reasons Why Congress Should Vote "NO"' [4] This should be added to financiers viewpoint section, I don't have an account. 71.131.4.224 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Ron Paul

Does it really matter what he, out of the hundreds of Congressmen, thinks of it? --NE2 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV means we include all notable POV's, the paleo-conservative view that this is "socialism gone mad" needs to be included as it represents a sizable section of the US voters. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Ron Paul really represent a "sizable section"? We already have several people with better-looking quotes stating a similar position. --NE2 07:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Does Ron Paul really represent a "sizable section"?" Yes thats how he got elected, our job is to record what has happened here. Both the push for and against this bill has been "bipartisan" with very strange bedfellows being created. We should show the whole diversity of opinion in order to deliver an NPOV review of what is going on. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it our job to record what all 435 Congressman believe about every issue? --NE2 14:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all 435, but thats why we should use weathervane members like Ron Paul, we should also say who voted for and against from the different parts of the democrat party. As i say what is interesting in this vote is that people who have never agreed on if its day or night have joined together on this issue. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you remove Ron Paul's statement against wall street bailout, make sure to remove President Bush and Secretary Paulson opinions for the wall street bailout to keep it balanced. Actually, don't remove either. The debate is informative. 71.131.29.36 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I am not a Ron Paul fan, I think it merits staying put. Anotheruserhere (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping Powers

The section "Sweeping Powers" is out of date.

http://publicmarkup.org/bill/senate-emergency-economic-stabilization-act-2008/1/119/ (which is the version that was signed today) has this to say about the powers afforded the Secretary

Actions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act shall be subject to chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, 
including that such final actions shall be held unlawful and set aside if found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.

Krystalogik (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sweeping Powers section applies to the original Paulson proposal, not the final bill. --JaGa^talk 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, oops. Aplogies. :bashful: Krystalogik (talk) 21:45, 3 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

“ The bill is very clear: Assets now held in China or London can be sold to U.S. entities on Monday and then sold to the Treasury on Tuesday. Paulson has made it very clear he would recommend a veto of any bill that cointained a clear provision that said 'if Americans didn't own the asset on September 20th that it can't be sold to Treasury.' Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it. They demanded it, and the bill has been carefully written to make sure that can happen. ” — video

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)

Potential Effects

The first sentence reading, "The maximum cost of a $700 billion bailout would be $2,295 estimated cost per American (based on an estimate of 305 million Americans), or $4,635 per working American (based on an estimate of 151 million in the work force)" and sourced by http://www.nbc6.net/news/17546459/detail.html, is wrong. The American taxpayer would be responsible for the interest paid by the American government on its public debt, if the entire $700 billion becomes public debt. At best, the article is erroneously using 4th grade math for a complicated problem, at worst it is intentionally misleading. I suggest that the sentence be changed to reflect the amount of the American government's interest payment that the American taxpayer would be responsible for, though I don't know what America currently pays on its debt. In the mean time, I suggest the sentence be removed, as it is just wrong (yes, sources can be wrong).--68.46.187.78 (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs Cleanup

The first sentence reading "The maximum cost of a $700 billion bailout would be $2,295 estimated cost per American (based on an estimate of 305 million Americans), or $4,635 per working American (based on an estimate of 151 million in the work force)" and sourced by http://www.nbc6.net/news/17546459/detail.html, is irrelevant and it should be corrected or replaced. The calculation run here cannot bear any resemblance to the actual effect on the taxpayer, because the taxpayers (or just every American as the article insinuates) are not responsible for $700 billion, they would become responsible for the interest the American government pays on its public debt if all $700 billion is unrecoverable. So the taxpayer would be responsible for the interest payments on an additional $700 billion of public debt, at most. At best, the sourced article erroneously applies 4th grade math to a complicated problem, or is intentionally misleading at worst. I don't know exactly what the American government pays as interest on its debt, so I can't correct the statement. In the mean time, I suggest its removal, as it is irrelevant and does not belong in an encyclopedia.--68.46.187.78 (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Cramer given his own paragraph

Why is Cramer given a seperate paragraph at the top of the article and all other journalists are given 1 sentence at bottom of article in the "Opinions of Journalists Section"? Cramer should be givent the same amount of space and moved to the opinions of journalist section. 71.131.4.248 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Time to merge

Well, the House passed the legislation, and I think we all know Bush isn't going to veto it. I'd say it's time to merge this puppy into Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. (And by merge, I mean overwrite the target article with this one.) --JaGa^talk 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly concur. However, I still feel like we are going to make it much more difficult for folks to find this article. At the very least I think we should maintain the phrase "commonly refered to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system" in the first sentence. Thoughts? Ronnotel (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. This plan will forever be known as the "bailout", be it spin or no. We should make it easy for this article to pop up in "bailout"-related searches. --JaGa^talk 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we wait a couple more hours for someone to squawk and then make the move? seems like there is support for this move, going ahead. Ronnotel (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• In favor of move to the bill title.
  Any google search will discover the redirects with bailout in them. This bailout concern is not a problem. The article text has the terms already as well. OK with me to wait, even a half day or more. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, and those who care about the editing history of this article:
  This article was known until about 20:00 October 3, 2008 as Proposed bailout of United States financial system, and it was moved to Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 on the day the bill was was enacted and a hour or so after it was signed into law on October 3, 2008.
  The edit history of the prior version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (up to 20:00 October 3, 2008 was deleted by the administrator involved when the article move was accomplished: the contents of the pre-move version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 had been the text of the official legislative summary of the bill, plus very minimal narrative describing the House and Senate votes on the bills that were proposed to be (or were actually) amended. All comments and history about the legislative proposals had been previously directed to the other article, which is and was voluminous, and previously known as Proposed_bailout_of_United_States_financial_system, and of this date is known at Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pre-merge copy of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

I have saved the last pre-merge version the article here in case anyone wants to rescue any text. Ronnotel (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the talk page which I specifically requested be merged with care? __meco (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the pre- merge talk page didn't seem very interesting so I didn't bother to capture it yet. I will do so and post to a user page, but I'm on the train now so I won't be able to get to it for a couple of hours. Ronnotel (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. See User talk:Ronnotel/Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 Ronnotel (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have recovered #Claim by Brad Sherman, D-CA, that plan is covertly set up to bail out foreign banks, not US. I didn't notice anything else on that talk page that needed to be brought here. __meco (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

how is the being paid for?

are we borrowing from the Chinese or just printing more money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.132.48 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Borrowing from anyone who will lend. This will be fairly easy, since there's been a rush to government securities in the last several weeks. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

+pl

pl:Plan Paulsona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianoo (talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Article still B-A-D-L-Y needs clean-up

Couple of points. 1. Market response, dropped 153 points after the new proposal was ratified. Is lower than the DJIA occurring after the failure of the first vote. The equity markets are volatile, and have been so since mid-August. See VIX. 2. There appears to be alot of repetition or near-repetition in the article. What is missing from the article, for example subsidies for wooden arrows and which congressman earmarked this pork. That would be nice to know. All in all there is alot more information in the article than an encyclopedic article should have.PB666 ^yap 14:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an excessive use of quotation in this article, many things are virtually repeated, these quoatations should be paraphrased and condensed beyond the third section the article becomes too technical/jargonist for wikipedia. An example is the word iliquid, outside of wikipedia I have never heard this word used in a public discussion. Words that are uncommonly used outside of financial circles should be wikied to wiktionary (as I have done for iliquid), or alternatively removed from more simple lingo.PB666 ^yap 14:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing a quote is not encyclopedic because it allows the person editing the quote to introduce his/her point of view. I am of the understanding that this activity should be reverted to the original quote. Pointing to definitions of technical words would be good. 71.131.19.115 (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The market (Dow) was up around 250 or 300 points, in the half hour before the vote. When the bailout passed, it fell around 400 to 450 points. see: http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/intchart.asp?intflavor=advanced&symb=DJIA&sid=1643&freq=9&time=1dy&dist=TQP_chart_image 71.131.19.115 (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Politician's views

I think #3 Presidential candidate Ralph Nader's views should be included. He has been outspoken on this plan and on this general issue for some time. Matt2h (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wooden arrows, rum, wool research, racetracks

I have added to the list of provisions in the Senate bill the following entries, along with their section numbers for easy lookup:

• Tax breaks and credit extensions for the following:
  • "Certain wooden arrows designed for use by children" (Sec 503)
  • Wool Research (Sec. 325)
  • Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
  • Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill (Sec. 504)
  • Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
  • American Samoa (Sec. 309)
  • Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
  • Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
  • Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
  • Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
  • Railroads (Sec. 316)
  • Auto Racing Tracks (317)
  • District of Columbia (Sec. 322)

— BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-02 00:31Z

"Certain wooden arrows designed for use by children": Wow, and how is this supposed to help in the current crisis? Anyway, it suddenly dawned upon me that Bush is just like the boy who falsely cried "wolf" (read WMD in Iraq) for fun (and funds), and is now not being believed by his own people in the House when the threat is real. Though I agree that homeowners should be helped but it seems that some burden would now have to be borne by the taxpayers to bail out the credit-market, so that at least it doesn't cause a recession like the 1929 one. Anyway, defaulting homeowners also need to realize their mistake(s). But I strongly believe that rather than "forcing" this plan through the Congress, alternative plans need to and ought to be more carefully and thoroughly considered, including those that may give stronger boost to the credit-market than the current one might give. Moreover, tax-breaks especially for innovative and new technological businesses should also be provided for in the bill, rather than those for "children's arrows" because it's technology only through which US has been able to maintain its lead over the world (anyway what will they do with those "arrows": shoot down each other with them, or shoot politicians and bankers who've created this whole mess)--Speedwiki (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the irony thing is the stupidest thing of this whole thing. The proposal (plus all the stuff the other politicians have added on) was actually a decentish thing by Bush, but he's not being believed, unlike when he did do bad stuff around the world. As the Financial Times says "Nothing can better demonstrate how absurd it is to believe one can punish Wall Street without hurting Main Street. The two streets meet. That is what streets do."

Oh, and the arrow thing is really really weird... Deamon138 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• The bailout's purpose is to allow Bush to make $50M per speech to wall street after he retires and Paulson to get a $900M a year job on wall street. It wasn't in the bill, but that's the way the federal government works. Bush retirement plan for himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.21.255 (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill" Anyone got an amount on how much american tax payer money is to be given to exxons lawyers so they can fight for the right to pollute. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some vandal deleted the pork barrel spending section you added. revert the deletion here: [6] I don't have an account and can't fix it. Why do people want to hide the subsidies and pork barrel spending? 71.131.12.220 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people need to worry about accusations of "pork spending." The Hate America First crowd always makes these accusations, and there is simply no evidence to back them up. Mwahcysl (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This info should also be added to the other article about this bailout. I think people find one or the other article but don't have time to read both: [[7]]

What other article? The reference above takes you back to this article. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

$150 Billion Extra in the Act

There's little or no mention of the fact that the law really is spending an extra $150 billion. The act doesn't just spend money on Wall Street, though that's its main purpose, it's also spending on pork mentioned later in the article. Shouldn't this information (or some basic summary that the law isn't really $700 billion) be included in the lead? Hires an editor (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. [8] discusses ten of them. Another, not discussed there, is the fact that credit union deposits are now federally insured up to $250,000 [9].

I think maybe listing all these additional provisions in a new section, as is done in Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007#Provisions of final version might be worthwhile, but I also wonder if there are maybe so many provisions that you'd wind up having to create whole new article just to list them? If the original bill was 3 pages and this one is 110... that's quite a lot of provisions... TerraFrost 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas on the extra dollar cost? I saw Jon Stewart of the Daily Show talk about $150 billion, but no idea on the sources. I found an NPR article that talked about $110 billion extra, but there's got to be more than that. Right? Hires an editor (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it's 150 billion extra over 10 years, offset by ~43 billion (estimated) in new taxes. The tax changes are part of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, not this act, and you can find more by following the link.... -- Kendrick7^talk 21:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The $150 billion extra isn't part of this act, it's part of the larger bill, H.R. 1424, which has it's own article. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please explain here or pointer. 71.131.29.239 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what part of that you don't understand. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's not part of this Act, it is significant that the politicians had to add all of that to pass it in the Senate, and it should be in the article. Wrad (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a mention of the $150 billion addition to the intro with a ref to H.R. 1424 . I think the article needs a section describing provisions of the bailout/rescue as passed.--agr (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

need to add new section - the aftermath - immediate reaction and climate in the world financial markets

The aftermath - immediate reaction and climate in the world financial markets:

Asian and European stock markets plunged Monday as government bank bailouts in the U.S. and Europe failed to alleviate fears that the global financial crisis would depress world economic growth. (down 4-6%) US Financial Market Futures are also trading down (down 2-3%) Russian Financial Markets plunged by more than 15%

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.134.168 (talk • contribs) 11:19:56, Oct 6, 2006 (UTC) (-84user (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

The above topic was added to the article as section Climate in the world financial markets by 82.80.134.168 with this edit.

I later reworded it with this edit and edit summary "change tone, extend cites, and update the figures to match CNN. I am unsure whether this section fits here". As my summary states, I am still unsure whether it belongs in the article at that point. Feel free to edit and move it as needed. -84user (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

There has been some back and forth over a particular section in this article recently. The contest is focused on this passage, which currently reads:

People have also hypothesized that if the crisis was as severe as reported (or alleged), the government would have received some signals of a meltdown at least a year or a few months in advance. If so, questions have arisen on why the administration didn't warn the public and investors in anticipation, and why such a very immediate action without proper consideration is being sought. Such questions have also arisen because this and recent bailout-like actions by US government are the "most sweeping government interventions in private financial markets in decades".

This passage, particularly the first sentence, constitutes weasel terms. I'm interested in how we could improve this section, especially with direct attributions. --causa sui ^talk 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the entire section basically original research? It's essentially speculation. HalfShadow 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to simply delete this whole section, rather than trying to repair it. It looks like someone trying to get their own view of the matter into the article. --causa sui ^talk 01:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I re-added the who tag and added two clarifyme tags because I could not find anything supporting the statements in the given cites. I may have missed it though. Anyway, in case it can be salvaged, I removed it from the article to here complete with "citations" (I made sure they were only used once):

People have also hypothesized that if the crisis was as severe as reported (or alleged), the government would have received some signals of a meltdown at least a year or a few months in advance. If so, questions have arisen on why the administration didn't warn the public and investors in anticipation, and why such a very immediate action without proper consideration is being sought. Such questions have also arisen because this and recent bailout-like actions by US government are the "most sweeping government interventions in private financial markets in decades".

-84user (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I thought I replied with a deweaseled version some hours ago, but I must not have hit save. Should be all set now. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could I bother you to include precise quotes from the cites (you can add them just before the end of each ref tag, or use the cite web template)? The second sentence is uncited and for the rest I still cannot find how those sources backup the sentences. See my clarify tag comments for why. One of my clarify tags was removed by your edit, it was "please give precise quotes - not found in telegraph article", and I checked again and could not find support. Thanks. -84user (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, they are lousy refs. These points were made all over the place in the media last week. I'll poke around tomorrow for these, unless the night shift wants to pick up the slack. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mean to scuttle this repair process, but I don't think anyone here would object that I have removed the offending section until something less weasley can be worked up. I think we are all on the same page here, so please feel free to restore the content once we have something more acceptable. This article is too high visibility to let that stand while we work on an improvement. --causa sui ^talk 06:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Scratch that, it looks like someone got a much improved version up already. Still needs some cleanup, but we are definitely moving in the right direction. Good work! --causa sui ^talk 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't tell me about the Bill!

This entire wikipedia article describes the passage of this bill. This tells me nothing about what is in the bill. This is entirely useless. Wikipedia is supposed to tell me what a thing is, and this whole thing is just a timeline of events behind the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akachazz (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• See H.R. 1424. Now noted atthe top of the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but that doesn't work. If you go to the page on H.R. 1424, it spends half of its time linking back to this timeline, and the other half talking about tax provisions. I ask again: why doesn't wikipedia have a page summarizing the bailout bill? Akachazz (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointedly, because nobody understands it, including the people who wrote it. --causa sui ^talk 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Touche. I think you nailed it. What kind of a world is this when even wikipedia cannot help me? Akachazz (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with ryan. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There were two separate articles, one over the timeline and the wrangling, and one over the contents of the bill itslef, but they got merged. You can actually find some of the more pertinent material now at Troubled Assets Relief Program. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What Congress did was set up a precedent so that people who make investments they can't pay off can get the government to take the burden off their shoulders. They're on a slippery slope which essentially obligates them ethically to pay off student loans of people whose jobs barely cover their rent in spite of their education (yes, I am one of those people, so I'm biased, but given common law, it's something that needs to happen).--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here's one analysis, by lawyers, no less:
  http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/files/2008/10/100208-analysis-economicsabilizationact08.pdf Financial Markets in Crisis: Section by Section An Analysis of of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (October 2, 2008) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • That link is incredible. Information on that page should be summarized and added. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For a shorter summary, you might also want to look at this post from the Mutual Fund Directors Forum and the linked writeup by some fellow named John Baker. John M Baker (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When i heard right wing members of congress complaining this was Socialism i thought they were mad but some of this is oldschool socialism. Restricting the earnings of executives, claiming back unearned bonuses that were still payed out.^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue any more. :) Sorry it took me so long. --JaGa^talk 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sweeteners"

The opening section makes reference to a sweetened version of the bill passing. The word "sweetened" is a hyperlink to an article on pork barrel spending. At least one of the sweeteners, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, is a major legislative initiative that has been in the works for years. Additionally, other ones, for example the extension of unemployment insurance, do not fit the definition of pork either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.24.254 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• That item was actually the original content of the bill that was the vehicle for the Emergency Economic Stabiization Act of 2008. , See H.R. 1424. You might say that the EESA-2008 was the pork attached to the Wellstone/Domenici act.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

$440,000 party for AIG executives

I created a new section titled "Examples of how the bailout money is being spent."

For the first entry, I added:

"An October 8, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings." "

This is relevant to this particular article, because it's the first example of bailout spending reported in the news after the bailout was signed into law, and readers will want to know how this bailout money is being spent.

Two people have already removed it from the article. The first was an unregistered user who did not explain why. The second was a registered user who said "not actually part of this sum of money." But the source says they "got" the bailout, and the party was to celebrate the bailout, and money is fungible, so even if the entire cost of the party was put on a credit card, the funding for the party will ultimately come from the bailout. And again, the source says they already "got" the bailout. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I Re-added this and believe it is notable and should be in the article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. You put it back after the first removal, and I put it back after the second removal. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the AIG retreat is not relevant is that AIG was not bailed out by the Treasury. It was bailed out by the Fed, and before the EESA passed. Since the money did not directly or indirectly come from the TARP run by Treasury, it doesn't matter that money is fungible. John M Baker (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The big $440,000 party disgusts me too, but it has no place in this article - the AIG bailout was separate from this Act. --JaGa^talk 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. See this chart: [10]. This article deals with line 1; the AIG bailout is line 4. Their bailout and retreat occurred before this bailout was even a twinkle in Secretary Paulson's eye. Last I checked, not a penny of this 700 billion fund has even been spent yet. I understand the confusion, but it's like conflating details from the First and Second Gulf Wars -- we're talking about two different things. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explaining that and posting sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Protests against the bailout

There was a protest against the bailout today in NY. I am not sure how widespread this is right now, but I think it should be noted if this is not an isolated incident. --Voidvector (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But these protesters are not notable, and really shouldn't be mentioned on the page itself. Mwahcysl (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there won't be another Boston Tea Party, but millions are ready for some revolutionary change. Some of the "fancy folk" who got us here, aren't all that hard to identify. This isn't a threat, but a comment on the fact that this recipe includes a host of unemployed folks who are ready for big changes.

Let Paulson give $650,000,000.00 of his money to save the country. He will still live a better life than anyone I know on his remaining $50,000,000.00. If enough billionaires put money back into america instead of siphoning it off, we wouldn't have this problem. Instead the money will be stolen from our children. The rich in America seem to have no allegiance to this country whatsoever. What is real to them is money. Everything else is a myth. Do I trust Paulson or Bush or Cheney? No! not even a little.

There are over 1000 billionaires on this list: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billionaires08_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html

Get your $700 billion dollars there and leave the american people alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

At first I thought that the above comments were a little too ridiculous to respond to, but ignorance breeds ignorance, so here goes. Paulson doesn't have $700b, obviously. To oversimplify, he's attempting to fix a very large mess that concerns more than just Wall Street. If the government doesn't deal with the bad mortgage backed securities, small town banks might be unable or unwilling to lend. Then small town people get hurt and the economy starts collapsing. Also, the American public is not being asked to pay for the bailout. The bailout will be funded by treasury bonds, which no one buys unless they want to. The government uses its own loan/investment vehicle to buy the mortgage backed securities and sort them out. Then they sell them back and try to recover as many bonds as possible. And the claim about billionaires siphoning money is Marxist baloney. The economy is not a static sack of money that people take from, leaving a smaller sack behind. The fed prints money as the economy grows (or as the velocity of money slows down) so it isn't possible for anyone to have all the money as you seem to think. I know very little about economics, but I know enough to recognize the occasional ridiculous comment. These problems are always more complicated than they seem, and the blame game on both sides is silly.--68.46.187.78 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What pathetic remark about Treasury Bonds... you do know that the interest on these bonds is paid with taxes right ? VShaka (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A famous quote from Bill Gates would be very much applicable to this Stabilization Act: “That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!”. I've yet to read something that I agree on in this article or in the media in general. Actually, the Brits seem to have the best plan. This Act seems to have been drawn up by some drunk economists or financial people over a long hangover... probably Bush's advisors. If they really knew what they were dealing with, they would not draw up such a pathetic Act that won't solve much. What do they plan to "Stabilize" with this Act ? Not the crisis I hope! Anyway, the 700B is peanuts compared to the amount of money Bush has dilapidated over these 8 years. The next president, must not only cut spending significantly, but should also raise taxes to drive the national debt down. This won't matter too much because overall, the US has much lower taxes than any EU country. VShaka (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Stock injection / alternative bailout in EESA?

There are rumors of an alternative bailout in the language of the EESA law, a.k.a. "stock injection". The language gives Treasury authority to buy preferred stock in troubled banks in addition to buying their toxic investments. My source is NPR Planet Money blog. Has anyone found or looked for the alleged text?

--jwalling (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

---

http://publicmarkup.org/bill/senate-emergency-economic-stabilization-act-2008/1/#section_113

1.IN GENERAL.The Secretary may not purchase, or make any commitment to purchase, any troubled asset under the authority of this Act, unless the Secretary receives from the financial institution from which such assets are to be purchased

A. in the case of a financial institution, the securities of which are traded on a national securities exchange, a warrant giving the right to the Secretary to receive nonvoting common stock or preferred stock in such financial institution, or voting stock with respect to which, the Secretary agrees not to exercise voting power, as the Secretary determines appropriate; or

B. in the case of any financial institution other than one described in subparagraph (A), a warrant for common or preferred stock, or a senior debt instrument from such financial institution, as described in paragraph (2)(C).

In plain English, I would like to know "When can the Treasurer purchase preferred stock and what are the limitations?"

--jwalling (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Final version of section 113, subsection:

http://publicmarkup.org/bill/emergency-economic-stabilization-act-2008/1/113/

d. CONDITIONS ON PURCHASE AUTHORITY FOR WARRANTS AND DEBT INSTRUMENTS.

1. IN GENERAL.The Secretary may not purchase, or make any commitment to purchase, any troubled asset under the authority of this Act, unless the Secretary receives from the financial institution from which such assets are to be purchased

A. in the case of a financial institution that is registered (or approved for registration) and traded on a national securities exchange or a national securities association registered pursuant to section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-3), a warrant giving the right to the Secretary to receive nonvoting common stock or preferred stock in such financial institution, as the Secretary determines appropriate; or

B. in the case of any financial institution other than one described in subparagraph (A), a senior debt instrument from such financial institution, as described in paragraph (2)(C).

--jwalling (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

---

This is how I interpret the above text: A financial institution can invite the Treasurer to purchase "nonvoting common stock or preferred stock" and the Treasurer can chose one over the other. (Unclear: must preferred stock also be nonvoting?) It's obvious to me that a bank is not going to offer stock purchases if they can sell toxic paper instead, so the only way they would is if they are pressured to sell stock. What pressures can the Treasurer use to get the invitation to purchase stock? What games are to be played by the interested parties?

--jwalling (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. substitute Secretary of the Treasury for Treasurer (I know the difference) --jwalling (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The way that reads is that banks can sell all the delinquent (not "toxic") debt they want, as long as they also provide a share of nonvoting stock to go along with it. Pointless. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Those "pointless" warrants for non-voting common, at minimum, represent a claim on the upside equity interest in the selling financial firms. Fee for risk ventured would be another phrase, and a way to make equity holders pay for the trouble of the firm in question by diluting their equity interest in the firm. Note that the amount of equity is unspecified, and depending on how hard the Treasury presses on these warrants, the amount could be significant. AIG gave up 80% in similar circumstances for its credit-liquidity facility. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, this part of EESA is not pointless. It points to a dividing line in political-economic philosophies: On one side are those who oppose anything that even hints of nationalizing banks; and on the other side, are those who find government ownership of public financial assets to be necessary in times of crisis. --jwalling (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All the cost of nationalisation with none of the Bank owning, this is mad? or am i? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I recommend this wiki article Warrant (finance): In finance, a warrant is a security that entitles the holder to buy stock of the company that issued it at a specified price, which is usually higher than the stock price at time of issue.

I think the current administration will resist pressures to accumulate warrants. If/when an Obama administration takes charge, we will likely see a shift in policy in this regard.

--jwalling (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Friday Oct 10, 2008: I stand corrected: US to buy stake in banks, first since Depression --jwalling (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Who opposed?

Can someone find out who opposed this in the House? Name and shame. Eunsung (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Names of these heroes may not be necessary.

-G

Basically, Democrats and the Hate America crowd opposed. Patriotic Americans and allies supported. Mwahcysl (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Where did you get that information from? The majority of people that opposed the bill in both the House and the Senate were Republicians. --199.137.137.101 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, umm... not everyone sees that as shameful my friend. Wrad (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, most major papers and news corps are carrying a list similar to this one right now: Roll Call results in pdf. Townlake (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

2/3 of Senators facing a tough reelection voted no. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26948516/ Wrad (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We do live in a representative democracy and polls locally show it was 7 or 8 to 1 against bailing out wall street. If the congresspersons voted way the polls were running, you would expect an 7 or 8 to 1 against in congress also. I would say congress finally voted with people rather than against people. No surprise here. But this is the wrong place to discuss this anyway. 71.131.31.84 (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a little reminder about neutrality folks. We are all going to have our opinions about this, and that is what blogspot.com is for. On Wikipedia we have no opinions other than about the quality and neutrality of our articles. Sure, sometimes being a wikidrone is bad, but other times it is the only way to get through the day without bloodshed. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We should say which way notable House members voted. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Records of the votes can be found for the House at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-101 and at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-213 for the Senate 75.42.223.119 (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought... This single bill spent over 26% of the entire estimated 2008 federal revenue (2.66T from this site). It is a controversial bill so a list of all the senate and congressional members who voted might be worth the effort -- I don't recall any time in our nations history where we've "emergency" appropriated that much without a war effort reason. Over the next few years, at the least, I could see including such a listing, adding enough value to making this page a rather popular reference versus simply pointing off to other website to "find details". "Reference" information after all... Again, just a thought. --Eleazaros (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Market price for the assets

This article in places suggests that the government will not be paying market price for the assets they are buying, but rather will be paying hold-to-maturity price. I do not feel I understand this well and this article should better explain what is meant by this. I have witnessed some of the hearings on this bill on CSPAN and the purpose of buying assets at hold-to-maturity pricing instead of market pricing has not been well explained. Agalmic (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any statement about what the government will do is speculation, since the TARP program is not set up, and only had its lead administrator announced yesterday.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that the whole intent of the bill is to give free money to the banks and brokerages. Bernanke said in his testimony to congress that the idea is to "buy high", (that means pay more that the mortgage backed security is worth). If you buy the mortgage backed security at market, the bank does not make any profit or improve the bank's balance sheet. Some poorly managed banks have lost so much money that are near bankruptcy. 71.131.7.197 (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole reason banks were asking that mark to market accounting be suspended is because the mortgage backed securities had a market price of approximately 20% of purchase price. If the taxpayers only paid market price (20% in this example), the banks' balance sheet would not be improved at all. If the mortgage backed securities were sold at 20% (current market price), the cost accounting rules would require that the 20% price be recorded in the profit and losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.4.194 (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Effect of new public debt?

Related to the "invisible run on the banks" idea, what is the effect of offering $700 billion in new US Treasury bonds on bank stability? If investors with money in the bank are looking to buy stable government bonds instead, then I would think that for every dollar in bad debt that the government buys, a dollar in savings will be withdrawn by a depositor to buy treasury bonds. How can the banks get ahead this way? Wnt (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not much effect. A lot of entities, funds, corporations and individuals have moved to cash holdings when they get out of other investments, and what entity is preferable to hold a bond of, compared to a U.S. government bond?
  In addition, the main point, if there were any ill effect, it is offset by the intended result of the purchases by the government: every dollar of mortgage-backed assets the government buys allows the financial entity owning the asset to use the cash for current activities, instead of owning a frozen asset that cannot be sold. The point is to provide liquidity to the owners of these assets, so they can re-enter the mortgage and other loan markets. The government is merely a new intermediary for the funds.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think you might have missed my point. The government buys the frozen investment and replaces it with the liquid investment - but then the depositor withdraws that liquid investment and puts it into the government bond that paid for the frozen investment. Leaving the bank not with a frozen investment but nothing at all, I'd think. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing at all would be an improvement from losing the depositor, which may still occur, without the bank being able to sell the mortgage backed asset. That would be called insolvency.
  In any case, you assume that funds the government receives are from depositors. There are many sources for the government funds, including funds already on hand, taxes, sales of U.S Treasury bonds, some of which may be purchased by international entities and individuals, some purchased by U.S. entities, including corporate, bank, trust, insurance, pension funds , banks and so on, including individuals. For some perspective, the assets of United States housholds amount to more than 50 trillion dollars, ignoring all corporate, municipal, state and other assets.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Added Obama-McCain Joint Statement on "bailout" from 24 SEPT 2008

Added Obama-McCain Joint Statement on Wall Street Welfare Queen "bailout" from 24 SEPT 2008 to "Paulson Proposal" section.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/mccain-suspends-campaign-issue-statement-obama/

Their full statement:

"The American people are facing a moment of economic crisis. No matter how this began, we all have a responsibility to work through it and restore confidence in our economy. The jobs, savings, and prosperity of the American people are at stake.

"Now is a time to come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people. The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail.

"This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country."

OneWorlder (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

adding relevent info to Foreclosure avoidance and homeowner assistance

In the Foreclosure avoidance and homeowner assistance section I think it should be noted in the second part [(2) encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures.] that all the bill does is encourage lenders to allow borrowers to seek relief through HOPE. The mortgage company has to agree to the lower payoff from the FHA. I think this should go above the final sentence in the section. Additionally I think it should be noted that the language ultimately promises no more than to require the Treasury Secretary and federal entities to "cooperate" or "work with" servicers and to develop a plan to alleviate foreclosures, but does not mandate what should be included in any plan. It also should be noted that it merely allows the Secretary to use certain measures at his own discretion.Frankie816 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

videos of key positions of key players in the Economic Stabilization debate

perhapses some video coverage of the positions could be cited or referenced if relevant from metavid's bailout videos If we want to import any assets that could be done since all the content on metavid is already in ogg theora and is public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdale (talk • contribs) 05:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Added in a Obama clip reference. There are more on that page if we want to balance it out with a clip of someone opposed to the bill. Mdale (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Propagandist title

Giving to the article the name of the bill, means framing the topic on the side of the government and wall street which sponsored it. The article is not strictly about the bill, but about the issue, which has a broader scope. I don't remember seeing any consensus on the talk pages for such renaming.--Sum (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion took place in the talk pages of Proposed bailout of United States financial system, which was subsequently deleted, before being recreated as a redirect. The archive of that talk page is located here in the talk archive #2: Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008/Archive 2
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion which ended with no consensus, the original title must be restored.--Sum (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• That name change was a month ago. If you desire to change the title now, propose it in a new section so that all may comment upon it. The article name was changed with due notice which a review of the archive shows. You may be better off starting a new article under the name you desire.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken Links

This file has been removed : http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/amend_001_xml.pdf

The text of the proposed law was expanded to 110 pages and was put forward as an amendment to H.R. 3997.

Please post a link to the original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.77.101 (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cost of bailout has risen to $2T

Bloomberg says that the cost of the bailout has risen from $700B to $2T without requiring the approval of Congress[11] This info should probably be added, but it doesn't say how this happened!? cojoco (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe this to be a measure announced on Oct. 14 together with the deal with nine banks for capital injection of $250 bn, see Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve and FDIC under "Second". It states there that the FDIC will guarantee new senior debt as well as deposits in noninterest-bearing accounts, which as the New York Times points out, amounts to $2 trillion. The press release, "after receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Paulson signed the systemic risk exception to the FDIC Act" clearly indicates that Paulson did not need approval of Congress for the measure as this is part of an existing law. It does belong to the total rescue package of the banking system though. Both Bloomberg and House Republican leader John Boehner have already called for a Freedom of Information Act request (see Boehner Demands Fed Identify Recipients of Loans). (I will leave implementation of this information to an English native speaker).

On a slightly diffent note, it is now quite clear that Mr. Paulson shifted his ways away from purchase of bad assets to direct capital injection and possibly, investments in consumer credit facilities. Probably he's not going to buy troubled assets at all - or leave the second trench of $350bn to the next administration. He's called to Congress to account for this move today. While this is a commonly acknowledged fact, your article goes a little further by stating "although this wasn't reported in the media or known to many congressmen, [Treasury is authorized to] make capital injections into banks". I find it a little hard to believe that after so much turmoil, the House approved of a direct capital injection bill that they didn't know about. Although I have read summaries of the Act and many comments, I'd like to see proof of this by someone with good knowledge of the entire text. The Guardian quote used to reinforce the statement sounds more like a comment to me than definite proof. On the other hand, if Mr. Paulson's move is not in the text as approved by Congress, the whole thing comes close to being misleading. - Art Unbound (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article refers to amounts loaned by the Federal Reserve, and not to amounts appropriated by EESA. In other words, although the Fed loans are part of the broad governmental effort to bail out the economy, they are not directly related to the bailout bill itself. John M Baker (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this change from Treasury buying troubled assets to Treasury investing in banks is known (in the recently published GAO report) as the Capital Purchase Program. But the larger question is whether "the bailout" should be referred to as all crisis-related CONGRESSIONAL money spent or if it includes all money spent by FEDERAL RESERVE and SECRETARY OF THE TRASURY (or other executive and quasi-governmental agencies). I mean at some point the bailout is just regular old management of the money supply system but during a financial crisis. Am I being clear here? MPS (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Section 128, allowing the Fed to pay interest on banks' deposits

Section 128 was a mistake which locked in the credit crisis; for details see this graph from this analysis. There is more info from the Fed, but it's not what I would call forthright. This is all it took:

SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.

Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461) is amended by striking `October 1, 2011' and inserting `October 1, 2008'.

That needs to be fixed fast, or the U.S. economy can kiss any incentive for banks to loan their money goodbye. Why risk anything on loans when the zero-risk Fed is paying interest? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Section 128 did not lock in the credit crunch. In fact, it gives the Fed more control over interest rates, which is considered a pro-stabilization move. Banks can make more money by lending to each other than by putting excess reserves at the Fed, and inter-bank loans are temporarily risk-free. John M Baker (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter whether inter-bank loans are risk free if the banks are just going to lend to each other more money to put on deposit with even less risky interest-bearing Fed accounts paid for by taxpayers who no longer have a commercial paper market that they've depended on for business viability over the past few centuries? Do you have a source supporting your statement that "inter-bank loans are temporarily risk-free"? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Banks' willingness to make inter-bank loans is considered a key measure of the tightness of money, because inter-bank loans normally are quite low-risk (and, currently, no-risk); if banks won't even lend to each other, they must not have the money to lend. The TED spread is the usual metric. Because inter-bank lending rates are more than the Fed will pay for excess reserves, banks will not borrow just to get interest from the Fed (though they may, of course, borrow in order to have enough required reserves).

The FDIC announced a program on October 14, under which newly issued senior unsecured debt issued on or before June 30, 2009, would be fully protected in the event the issuing institution subsequently fails, or its holding company files for bankruptcy. John M Baker (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The TED spread doesn't say much about volume. The $400 billion of government paper is failing to replace the $1.8 trillion commercial paper market that just , which is why the economy is deflating and the sectors of the goods economy dependent on commercial paper (e.g. shipping, manufacturing, and parts) are in the process of collapsing. Can the FDIC program handle $1.4 trillion by the end of the week? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, the FDIC program coincidentally is expected to cover about $1.4 trillion of bank debt. Of course, the bank debt covered by the FDIC guarantee has multiple purposes, so you can't just think of this as a dollar for dollar replacement of the commercial paper market, even though it's true that many commercial paper issuers have turned to bank borrowings instead.

Great! Does Treasury approve? What happens to the existing commercial paper underwriters? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Treasury is on board with the FDIC program, which was announced on a coordinated basis with Treasury and Fed measures to protect the economy. The existing commercial paper underwriters are, of course, getting less business, though some of the larger commercial paper issuers don't use underwriters anyway. John M Baker (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and how about shipping, the primary economy's goods markets, and the additional unemployment - who will be paying for the damages to those? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Treasury Asset Relief Program versus Troubled Assets Relief Program

The balance sheet at the bottom of the article currently lists Treasury Asset Relief Program which I think is a mistake (Treasury vs Troubled) but google returns several hits... is there some history I am unaware of here... Also I wikified Commercial Paper Funding Facility and am wondering if the other entries in the balance sheet require a sililar wikification. Are there articles on these other initiatives, such as the "proposed bailout of the automakers"??? Peace, MPS (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Saturn Corporation

the article Saturn talk about the US Congressional hearings. Is it possible to have an article or some reference to what this is? Anyone game to make some correlation with the emergency funds... and the baillout? --CyclePat2 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)