kruijs![[Power User]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_superuser.gif "This user is a super user"){kind=icon}
Will the US Congress agree to the 700 billion bail-out as proposed by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke?
Settled as NO as nor agreement was reached by the Friday deadline for this question
Background:
The US Treasury is requesting the authority to issue up to 700 billion US dollars of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of banks' "troubled" mortgage-related assets.
A crucial vote on the US Government's proposed 700 billion US dollar bank bail-out could be taken as soon as Wednesday.
The scheme's architects, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, addressed members of Congress to stress the urgency of the situation.
It is to be funded through extending the US national debt, or in other words, the US taxpayer.
To settle Yes, they must agree with this plan as currently discussed until the end of this week, thus on or before Friday, September 26th.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5j7n1pK8f8JrJ6mwkiG-iSKogjmEw
ADDITIONAL INFO PROVIDED BY QUESTION CREATOR:
These are the outlines of the plan:
- Issuing up to 700 billion US dollars of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of banks' "troubled" mortgage-related assets.
- The price of assets purchases will be established through "market mechanisms where possible, such as reverse auctions" (This would mean banks would compete to sell their assets at the lowest prices).
- It is to be funded through extending the US national debt, or in other words, the US taxpayer.
- The assets must have been originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.
- Participating financial institutions must have "significant" operations in the US, but Mr Paulson has the capacity to widen the uptake if it is deemed "necessary to effectively stabilise financial markets"
If any of these are changed, or no agreement is made this week, the question settles as NO.
Settlement details:
As reported by a major mainstream news source.
Settled
|
|
Yes |
|
||
|
|
No |
|
Suspend date: Sat 27th Sep 12:59am PDT Settlement date: Sat 27th Sep 7:03am PDTPrediction cut-off: Predictions on this question after Sat 27th Sep 12:59am PDT have been voided because they were made after the question could be settled
Initial likelihoods: Yes: 65%
Action history:
kruijs 
dieseldog: Lawmakers Say Progress Made on Bailout, Hope for Weekend Deal
Saturday, September 27, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429142,00.html
biloxibeachboy: I believe the question provided a cut off date of yesterday (Friday) for this to have been accomplished. 
Erik: "If any of these are changed, or no agreement is made this week, the question settles as NO."
Didn't happen
bayoubear![[Admin]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_admin.gif "This user is an admin"){kind=icon}
: Settled as NO as nor agreement was reached by the Friday deadline for this question
Suspend date: Sat 27th Sep 12:59am PDT Settlement date: Sat 27th Sep 7:03am PDTPrediction cut-off: Predictions on this question after Sat 27th Sep 12:59am PDT have been voided because they were made after the question could be settled
more info...
Get widget!Predictions (230)
230 predictions
andreevna
leeangelo
onthelang
cheesenips
ultra1
gribeiro
cartographer
robukComments (35)
What is Hubdub?
Hubdub makes news more exciting by letting you stake virtual dollars on the outcomes of real running news stories.
Join now or learn moreRelated News
This news is selected automatically based on the question, its background, options and tags
- Issuing up to 700 billion US dollars of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of banks' "troubled" mortgage-related assets.
- The price of assets purchases will be established through "market mechanisms where possible, such as reverse auctions" (This would mean banks would compete to sell their assets at the lowest prices).
- It is to be funded through extending the US national debt, or in other words, the US taxpayer.
- The assets must have been originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.
- Participating financial institutions must have "significant" operations in the US, but Mr Paulson has the capacity to widen the uptake if it is deemed "necessary to effectively stabilise financial markets"
If any of these are changed, or no agreement is made this week, the question settles as NO.
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
How do you determine whether or not they've 'currently agreed' . . . .I'm just kinda hoping they don't agree to ANYTHING by the end of the market period...would make settlement much easier!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152ap_financial_meltdown_investigation.html
The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.
Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the people said.
They said they did not recall Mr. Davis’s doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the approaching midterm Congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis & Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis’s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House."
http://tinyurl.com/5y78yj
$15,000 a month for screwing the US taxpayer.
And McCain is letting this one run his campaign..
Sweet.
For another interesting tidbit, check this list out: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
Amazing how 2 faced these people are. They need to be in politics because we don't want them running businesses in the "real world"!
"If any of these are changed, or no agreement is made this week, the question settles as NO"
What if none of those are changed, but there are additions?
agreed to, the addition of more conditions wouldn't affect the
outcome. If any of the primary points are not approved, it's a
NO. If all of those are approved, it's a YES.
Fact: Bush/McCain helped create this deregulated mess.
http://tinyurl.com/426uuy
Please digest:
Shifting the blame is no answer, as usual, to the problem at hand.
"It is base."
nice!
We never seem to learn, I guess...remember gas crisis from years past, where we reacted by designing cars that were more efficient, reduced speed limits, and took other steps. But as soon as it was over, we went at it again....speed limits back up, bigger cars, hummers, all that stuff.
Yeah, that is a good point about the Savings and Loans - more than 1000 of them folded up & I remember being told it was because they were not as fiscally responsable as the more established banking institutions... it's interesting to think back on that now! My guess is that some lessons were not learned very well.
Please log in or join to add a comment