Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

ANGELAGEORGATOS: The bank bailouts is outrageous when so many people are losing their homes, and bank executives are getting their extensive bonuses from the tax payer. For the private sector getting welfare from the state makes an outright mockery of capitilism. When you deregulate the banking system you let in all the crooks and thieves. Giving out home loans to deseperate people who do not have the income to repay such loans should be investigated by authorities. These lenders who give out such loans are making huge fees at the expense of the person taking out such loans. With these handouts by the government banks have stop lending money to the world which has frozen the economy and taken us into a worldwide recession. Buisness are selling inventory and factories are getting closed. Unemployment is rising because banks refuse to do buisness with the consumer. Instead bank executives are giving themselves bonuses from the tax payer. The is capitilism at it's ugliest. The world wide banking system should be regulated from these out-of-control corporate cowboys and keep ordinary people in their homes instead of foreclosing on their future. The bankers live in their protected neighbourhoods and expensive million dollar apartments while ordinary folks who are getting very little welfare have to fend themselves on desperate and dangerous streets.ANGELA GEORGATOS

Tautological sentence

The second sentence on the introduction is tautological. "The bailed-out banks are mostly U.S. or foreign banks (...)" Author of the article, please correct.

What agency?

The open letter from economists include the mention of an agency: Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. Is this an agency which the Paulson plan proposes to establish? __meco (talk)

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[1] 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 collapsed, 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)

This edit seems extremely unjustified

This edit erased a huge amount of stuff that I have added to the article. If you look at the edit history of the person who made this edit, they are stalking me and following me around and attacking many things that I wrote in many articles. This edit is completely unwarranted and I am undoing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't your soapbox to preach your point of view about issue. Given other edits you've made at Presidency of Barack Obama and Internal Revenue Service, you are only here to push your agenda. Grsz¹¹_Review 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting the facts and citing reliable sources. The way the bailout money is being spent is extremely relevant to the bailout article. I asked you on your talk page to explain why the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the bailout article, but you never answered. So I'll ask you again: why is the way the bailout money being spent not relevant to the bailout article? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Now this edit is also extremely unjustified. The way the bailout money is being spent is extremely relevant to the article. Or did you think we should just believe everything the government says about this law, and ignore what actually happens in the real world after the law is passed? Everything I put here was cited by national media sources. All of this stuff received extensive media coverage. These things are facts, not opinions. I am not pushing a point of view. The things I added to the article are verifiable facts. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, wikipedia isn't a forum for you to air your opinions. It doesn't matter whether your criticisms of the bill are valid or your opinions correct, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Further, not only did the added material stray quite far from WP:NPOV, but it violated the basic writing style of wikipedia. You can't state opinion as fact, and certainly not as a whole series of separate sections with subject headers like "Bank of America throws $10 million Super Bowl party" (which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article anyway). Instead of violating WP:3RR, why don't you try to get consensus before adding the material. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you say the $10 million Super Bowl party has nothing to do with the bailout? They threw the party right after they received bailout money. Here and on your talk page, I have repeatedly asked how you can say the way the bailout money is being spent has nothing to do with the bailout, but you keep refusng to answer. And now I see you have placed a warning on my talk page threatening to ban me. You keep saying that I am pushing POV. You are mistaken. People who read the article about the bailout are going to want to know how the bailout money is being spent. And this has received extensive news coverage in the national media. Everything that I posted was accurate and verified by reliable sources. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent has nothing to do with the bailout? And why do you keep refusing to answer that question? Why do you think we should just believe everything the government says about the bailout, instead of looking at what is actually happening in the real world? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Grundle2600. The criticisms seem appropriate and notable. II | (t - c) 02:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To those of you who disagree with me on this: Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Why do you continue to refuse to answer this question? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Now another person, User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, has erased it, without answering my question: Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Why do you continue to refuse to answer this question? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you people keep threatening to ban me over the "3R" rule instead of answering a simple question: Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Every source that I cited has mentioned the bailout, so how can you people say my sources are not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Still no answers to my question. Just more censorship to the article, and more threats to ban me. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just got another threat to be banned, and another request to take this discussion to the article's talk page. Well, I have taken it to the talk page - many times. I have asked the question on the talk page many, many times, but no one has answered it. They just keep threatening to ban me instead. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not about censorship and your repeated accusations (here and on other talk pages) about "threats to ban me" are out of line, wrong and can be seen itself as a serious offence since they have no merit at all. A courtesy notice of wp:3rr is a standard rule that can and mostly is given to any editor who disobeys it (and might not be aware of it). The result can be a temporary block which in comparison to a ban is timely restricted.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Every person who erased my entries told me to take it to the talk page. But when I took it to the talk page, they repeatedly refused to answer my questions. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why answer my questions, when they can give me a "temporary block" instead? Why do the very people who told me to take it to the talk page, refuse to answer my questions on the very talk page they told me to ask the questions on? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Threatening a temporary block instead of answering my questions is not a "courtesy." If they wanted to be "courteous," they would answer my questions instead of threatening to block me. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening [just repeating yourself] and therefore I give you one last link:assume good faith. Please start reading ALL the links I provided you (here and on my talk page) before you keep on like this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how these deleted entries are not relevant to the bailout

All of you who erased my entires told me to take it to the article's talk page. So here I am on the article's talk page. Please explain to me how this has nothing to do with the bailout:

Government officials overseeing bailout don't know how it's being spent

A December 31, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Government officials overseeing a $700 billion bailout have acknowledged difficulties tracking the money and assessing the program's effectiveness." [198]

A January 29, 2009 article from bloomberg.com stated, "Bloomberg News asked the Treasury Department Jan. 26 to disclose what securities it backed over the past two months in a second round of actions to prop up Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. Department spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Jan. 27 she would seek an answer. None had been provided by the close of business yesterday." [199]

Banks won't say how they are spending bailout money

A December 22, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest? None of the banks provided specific answers... Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going." [200]

A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen US-based banks by the New York Times found that "few [banks] cited lending as a priority. An overwhelming majority saw the bailout program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future." [201]

Federal government paid $254 billion for assets that were worth only $176 billion

On February 5, 2009, Elizabeth Warren, chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel, told the Senate Banking Committee that during 2008, the federal government paid $254 billion for assets that were worth only $176 billion. [202]

Bailout recipients spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions in 2008

On February 4, 2009, it was reported that during 2008, the companies that received bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. These companies received $295 billion in bailout money. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of The Center for Responsive Politics, said of this information, "Even in the best economic times, you won't find an investment with a greater payoff than what these companies have been getting." [203]

Bank of America throws $10 million Super Bowl party

A February 2, 2009 ABC News article titled, "Bailed Out Bank of America Sponsors Super Bowl Fun Fest" stated that Bank of America sponsored a Super Bowl event at a five star resort in Palm Beach, which was described as "... a five day carnival-like affair... 850,000 square feet of sports games and interactive entertainment attractions for football fans..." Although the bank refused to answer ABC News' questions about the cost of the event, a confidential source told ABC that the cost was approximately $10 million. [204]

$1.6 billion in salaries and bonuses for executives

A December 21, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals. The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue... Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found. The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines." [205]

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• How about adding an "other" section in "Views from the public, politicians, financiers, economists, and journalists" to include some of the (short-living?) trivia? Just a thought (to put this to rest).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Or creating a sub article (even so I'm not sure if it would survive an AFD) and link it in the "see also" section"?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent constitutes "trivia"? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to restrain yourself from your own point of view (as I try to do when I edit WP). Compared to the overall money spent a "few millions" get lost in trivia. It's like if you'd have 100 $ and lost a nickel; you wouldn't pay much attention to that, or would you?

Besides you didn't respond to my two proposals above yet complaining quite a while "for not getting a response" about one of several questions of yours. Are your questions and your input more important than those of other editors? I'll take away the answer from and say: No.

And here another question that only you can answer: Is a potential compromise even an option from your side? I'm not going to comment further till some other editors respond to this thread. At the end this is not just between you and me but the whole WP community. I see it as a time waster and kind of forum soaping going on like this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Super Bowl party is relevant because it proves they aren't as poor as they claim. The other things were about much bigger amounts of money. Neither the politicians who supported the bailout, nor the corporations that received the bailout money, have been willing to tell reporters how the bailout money is being spent. That's $350 billion. How is that not relevant to the article on the bailout? How is that "trivial"? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the first of your statements there is Original synthesis. You can't put A and B together to conclude C. Grsz¹¹_Review 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps someone should change the wording to make it better, instead of erasing it. The government gave $350 billion to the banks. The politicians and banks are not willing to tell reporters how the banks are spending the money. How is that "not relevant" to the article? How is that "trivia"? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Grundle. You got more questions than answers which is basically not a bad thing but if you agree with my observation you should stop asking questions for the moment and digest responses. After that you might have some smarter questions if it all. Besides that, you could propose different wording by yourself.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are my entries "not relevant" and "trivial"?

The government gave $350 billion to the banks. The politicians and banks are not willing to tell reporters how the banks are spending that money. How is that "not relevant" to the article? How is that "trivia"? Grundle2600 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made thousands of edits here at wikipedia, and I've never erased anything that was well sourced and relevant to the article that it was in. I want these articles to have as much well sourced, relevant information as possible. Wikipedia is supposed to be about openness and transparency. This article has lots of information about the intent of the bailout bill, and that's a good thing. But it should also have lots of information about the actual real world results of the bailout, too. It is extremely relevant that the banks who got the $350 billion are not willing to tell the media how they are spending it. It is also extremely relevant that the politicians who oversaw the bailout are also not willing to tell the media how this money is being spent. This information has been well publicized by many reliable, mainstream news sources. For you people to say that it's "not relevant" and "trivial," and then for you to refuse to answer my questions about why it is "not relevant" and "trivial," and for you to threaten to give me a temporary suspension, is a complete insult to the very principles of openness and transparency that wikipedia is supposed to be about. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it from this article, and put it in another article instead

I have removed the stuff from this article, and put it in Troubled Assets Relief Program instead. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the neutrality tag from the article

I have removed everything that you people claimed was "not relevant" and "trivial," and I am now done editing this article, so I removed the neutrality tag. Please quit stalking me and erasing my stuff at other articles. Good bye. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your information was reasonable, just worded in a slightly non-encyclopedic way. I will try to put it back paraphrased later. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been rewording it for the other article, but the same people have followed me there and they keep erasing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

no mention of the IRS changes

We received a notice that financial institutions are not required to send their 1099 forms until February 17 due to this law. There should at least be mention of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.142.8 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)