Jump to content

Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 23 December 2016 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.2.7.1)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

rollcall vote

Thanks for a great article. The link for the roll call votes in the house goes to the official house website, which is not very usefull - just an alphabetical list of yeas and nays. is their a better list (eg, broken down by state and party /) the link to the senate vote is an example. I would be willing to enter data if somoene call help me set up the table(s) - I don't know enough about the wiki markup language to do thisCinnamon colbert (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interest on bank reserves

"China’s central bank moved late Friday to reduce lending to companies and individuals by requiring large commercial banks to increase the amount of cash they park with the central bank. The move, which came earlier than most economists had expected, was meant to slow China’s breakneck economy and inflation." - Bradsher, K. (February 12, 2010) "China’s Central Bank Hits Brake on Hot Economy" New York Times

If China increases excess reserves to slow their economy, does that mean that Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner were all wrong about the wisdom of interest on reserves? Why can't Sheila Bair call them on it? Is she not pressing her $24B asset detoxification plan because she believes her party's assertions that Obama is a bad leader? Please discuss at Talk:Excess reserves#China. 99.27.200.196 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses in descriptions

It seems like this article was written in Fall/Winter 2008/2009 and it is rife with statements such as "recently" and "A key part of the proposal is". Shouldn't that be "was"? Also "The maximum cost of a $700 billion bailout would be".... seems to imply that the bailout has yet to happen. Shouldn't that also be "was"? Anywhere I can look for tips on how to clean this mess up? audiodude (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video deleted

Was this deletion a good idea? I don't have time to watch it right now, and I'm not sure how good the Khan Academy is with statistics. Dualus (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing views in the lead

How can we get a more accurate summary than this one? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How in particular are these views not representative of all of the views expressed on the bill? 75.166.192.187 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments of proponents and opponents are already summarized in the paragraph prior to the one removed. Your opinion that three specific opinions of individuals, all in opposition to the act, represent all the views on the bill does not justify giving those particular individual views prominence by highlighting them in the lead. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's justified by WP:NPOV in this case. This bill was reviled. Can you find any opinions of people saying good things about it to balance those quotes? 75.166.192.187 (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted bad math

In the section "Interest on bank deposits held by the Federal Reserve," there's a sentence that says,

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated that payment of interest on reserve balances would cost the American taxpayers about one tenth of the present 0.25% interest rate on $800 billion in deposits."

This is followed by a table that shows estimated budgetary losses/expenditures. Then there's this, which I found problematic,

"0.25% simple interest on $800 billion is $2 billion, not $202 million as shown for 2009."

The previous sentence had said the CBO estimated that taxpayers would lose 10% of 0.25%, not the entire 0.25%. How is 0.25% of $800 billion relevant? 10% of 0.25% of %800 billion is in fact $202 million. I have deleted the sentence, "0.25% simple interest on $800 billion is $2 billion, not $202 million as shown for 2009."

Envelopment (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas

[=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/bernanke-says-u-s-economy-seeing-progress.html >>> Bernanke Harbors Regret on Main Street’s View of Bailout ](Lihaas (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Perhaps time to call it a "good article"?

What do u say? --Mats33 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008&oldid=756326611"