Jump to content

User talk:Ronnotel/Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

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

Article merger

[edit]

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


Discussion
  • Though the proposal, structured as an amendment to an unrelated bill was not accepted, it's clear that the topic will come before both houses again. The proposal will continue to be the vehicle of further legislative action, as an inspection of news articles of the day reveals. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology
  • The House vehicle for the legislation was an amendment to H.R. 3997 on September 29, 2008. The amendment was not accepted.
  • The Senate vehicle on October 1, 2008 is to amend HR1424, by voting to substitute the language of HR1424 with the revised text of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.[1]
  • With the Senate acceptance of the amendment, and subsequent passing of the amended bill, HR 1424 was sent to the House for consideration.[2]
  • The bill, HR1424, was acted on by the House and voted on October 3 by 263-171 to enact the bill into law.[2][3]
  1. ^ Amendment to HR 1424 ( the amendment being the text of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (October 1, 2008) ( Retrieved October 1, 2008). See also the Senate Committee on Banking access page for the legislation: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
  2. ^ a b "H.R.1424". THOMAS. Library of Congress. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2008-10-01. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (Access to legislative history of H.R. 1424)
  3. ^ Herszenhorn, David M. (2008-10-03). [House Approves Bailout on Second Try "House Approves Bailout on Second Try"]. New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-03. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Approve the merger
Against the merger
Neutral
  • Neutral — much of the content from Proposed bailout of U.S. financial system (2008) needs to be merged here, but there are alternatives to this bill that will need to be collectively discussed in a more abstract article.   — C M B J   02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The future of the bill is in doubt, and the bill will probably go through name changes on its journey through Congress. I'd like to wait until there's more certainty about the bill, and would then support the merge. We could also let this be a detailed look at the bill, with the "Proposed ..." article pointing here with a "main" template and having history, summary of the Paulson proposal, etc. --JaGatalk 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral At first it seemed an obvious merge, but from reading the comments it appears that it may be appropriate to have an article dealing with the overall issues of the rescue plan for the US financial crisis, while another one deals with the specifics of the Act proposed to restore confidence in the market. While elements of each article could be summarised in the other, that doesn't neccessarily mean both should be shoved together. Also, a large amount of the problem with Proposed bailout of United States financial system is to do with the name, but that is a different issue, and should be discussed under a proposed move of the name. I note the comments above that while all this is happening, it may be worth waiting to see what emerges, and that makes sense. SilkTork *YES! 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be premature to consider merging or restructuring these two articles today. The situation should be clearer in a few days time, and one of the problems of trying to catalogue contemporary history is that it is difficult to show how the outcomes arrive. Please reconsider this after the position is clearer. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments section of the Article

[edit]

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

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


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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

CopyVio

[edit]

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

But didn't MarketWatch simply copy it verbatim from the bill itself? Perhaps all we really ought to do is change the reference. --JaGatalk 11:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely far shorter and the summary might be their own words. gren グレン 12:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the part that's unclear. Wording from the actual bill on Homeowner assistance: "IN GENERAL.To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate, including multifamily housing, the Federal property manager shall simplement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures."[2]. Wording from marketwatch: "EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans - many the result of predatory lending practices - wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes" [3]. it appears to me that there some language in the Marketwatch summary, which would not be governmental language - "predatory lending practices". But maybe that's acceptable language from an American government? SilkTork *YES! 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this were an official governmentally-produced summary, it would be reasonable to conclude that the text would be far shorter (that's what a summary is supposed to do, after all), and use of terms such as "predatory lending practices" wouldn't be too unlikely by politicians: after all, a summary wouldn't have legal authority, so the proponents of the bill could word their summary as they saw fit. Of course, if this were a privately-produced summary, the same could be done, but I don't think the language by itself can prove that it's privately produced. 63.172.28.121 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the government text that the Marketwatch article copied. The text is in the public domain as a work of the United States Government.

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

voting

[edit]

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

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

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

Mark to Market

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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


A discussion of the implications of this was presented the same night by Karl Denninger on YouTube[4]. 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)[reply]

Move warning

[edit]

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

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