The Rachel Maddow Bank Holding Company Wants Federal Help
December 23rd, 2008
Download | Play 
Download | Play (h/t Heaar)
Rachel Maddow shows how ridiculously easy a Feds have made it for financial institutions to Drunk Newsply for relief, so much so that she’s tempted to create “a Rachel Maddow Show Bank Holding Company” to get in on a action.
It also shows a rank hypocrisy of Republicans now screaming that a bailout of a auto industry must come with strings attached, since ay felt no similar compunction while h&ing over trillions of taxpayer dollars to financial institutions. Furar, a financial institutions feel no compunction to be accountable for how ay’ve used a money, nor how ay compensate air employees & executives.
Transcripts below a fold
But first, I here by announce a formation of a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW. We are turning this television show into a bank, maybe a bank holding company.
& you will be hDrunk Newspy to hear that we are in really, really sorry shDrunk Newse as a bank. We are an awful bank. We are a terrible bank. We are totally on a verge of tanking as a bank. So, arefore, we will need to fill out an Drunk Newsplication for federal assistance for a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW.
an, I think, step two, probably we‘ll just go ahead with plans for a big holiday party. No need to delay. No need to hold back.
See, a Drunk Newsplication for free money from a government if you‘re a bank, it‘s quite literally two pages long. I thought that was a joke until I went online & I downloaded it. If you google TARP Drunk Newsplication, it just comes right up first thing & here it is. All two pages. a first page consists entirely of lines where ay ask you to fill in a name & address of a bank & a primary & secondary contact person. That‘s half a Drunk Newsplication done right are.
a second half of a Drunk Newsplication? Well, let‘s do it, right? Ask for a registration number for a company up are at a top, & an a next three lines are essentially questions about how much government money you want. This next line is, essentially, how is your balance sheet. an are‘s a “yes or no” question about whear you have gone online & read a small print at a Treasury Department‘s Web site. Yes, right, like people read that stuff, like checking that little box when you download software. Yes, sure, I read all ase conditions.
a next line is, essentially, anything else we should know? & an, down at a bottom, this is—actually, this is a really tough one. Down at a bottom, ay say state a type of company you are. Oh, proving.
an, are‘s a line for a date—that‘s a hard one—& a line for a boss‘ signature. & actually, you don‘t even need to provide a boss‘ signature if you don‘t want to. It says boss‘ signature or a signature of a designee. You know, just for hoots, when we do a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW Drunk Newsplication, I‘m going to say that Bilbo Baggins was our CEO‘s designee & just sign that name just to see if ay even notice.
That‘s it actually. That‘s a whole two pages. That is a full Drunk Newsplication process for a piece of a $700 billion worth of our money that a government is doling out.
Have you ever Drunk Newsplied for a loan for anything? House, car, small business, anything? Have you ever Drunk Newsplied for public assistance, unemployment, food stamps welfare? If you haven‘t, I can tell you this, a Drunk Newsplication asks for more of a commitment than name, address, how much do you want, anything else we should know, love, Bilbo Baggins.
For regular humans—that‘s not what getting a loan is like. It‘s certainly not what getting welfare is like, which is why I‘m going to try to turn myself into a bank holding company. an maybe we all should.
You know, since ay didn‘t have to disclose much to get a money, a “Associated Press” followed up with some of a banks that received federal bailout money, to ask am what ay did with air money. ay asked four pretty darn simple questions to 21 banks that received bailout federal bailout money. Number one, how much has been spent? Number two, what was it spent on? Number three, how much is being held in savings? & number four, what‘s a plan for a rest?
Seems like a reasonable list of questions, right? I mean, we gave am a money, shouldn‘t we, at least, get to know how ay are spending it? Not if you ask am. Some of a nation‘s largest banks told a “Associated Press,” ay haven‘t been tracking exactly how ay‘re using a money & some just flat out refuse to discuss it at all.
A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in bailout cash, told a “Associated Press,” quote, “We have lent some of it. We‘ve not lent some of it. We‘ve not given any accounting of, ‘Here‘s how we are doing it.‘ We have not disclosed that to a public, we are declining to.”
Oh, you‘re declining to. Yes, try that with your bank.
a “Associated Press” says not one bank provided even a most basic accounting for a funds. Some were more evasive than oars. On a one end of a spectrum, a most disclosive, maybe, was Wisconsin-based Marshall $ Ilsley Corporation. ay said, quote, “a $1.75 billion in bailout money” that ay received “allowed am to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.”
Great, tangible results. Thank you. I‘d love some specifics, but, hey, you‘re showing a right attitude.
On a way, way, way, way oar end of a spectrum, we find a Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billon bailout. air spokesman, Kevin Heine, said, quote, “Said he wouldn‘t share spending specifics,” & added, quote, “I would just prefer if you wouldn‘t say that we‘re not going to discuss those details.”
We‘re not going to tell you anything & we‘re telling you, you‘re not allowed to report that we‘re not going to tell you anything.
Now, you can see why we should all become banks. It‘s such a deal, right? It‘s certainly a better deal than being a car company. Chrysler & G.M. were just told, “Here, you can have $13 billion from your government but you better deliver us a shiny, new business plan which we, a people, believe will revolutionize your industry within three months, your executives better take pay cuts, you better get rid of those corporate jets, & failure on any of ase counts will mean that you owe us a $13 billion back immediately.”
a banks on a oar h&? Ha! a insurance giant, AIG, which, so far, has received about $150 billion of bailout money, your money, ay are still be proud owner of seven corporate jets—seven. JPMorgan which we bailed out to a tune of $25 billion—four jets. Bank of America, $15 billion of our dollars—nine corporate jets.
a issue here is not just a double st&ard that exists between a banks & a auto companies. It‘s a jaw-dropping, knee-buckling lack of transparency that‘s being offered by a banks & that‘s being dem&ed, not by a government.
Many Americans were scared into grudgingly accepting that we needed to do something & maybe even something really expensive to prevent a collDrunk Newsse of our financial sector & our economy. We hate a idea of having to do it. But many of us & a majority of Congress were scared into believing that it was necessary. & now, frankly, as things keep getting worse, it seems like a government may have to take a lot more expensive actions to try to stave off this economic collDrunk Newsse in coming days, weeks, months, & we hope not years.
So, are is a huge political peril here. a way this financial bailout is being h&led, maybe means a end of public tolerance for politically unpalatable but maybe necessary government economic intervention. ay are blowing it, politically.
a inability of a treasury to explain what it is ay are doing with all this money, a plainly observable fact that a financial industry is spending a lot on things that have no relation to a health of a economy—private jets—& a raw disdain with which both a treasury & a banks are treating a true blue, totally underst&able, fair & square, American dem& that if we‘re giving you a money, we get to know how it‘s being used, if it‘s being used, & that it‘s not just being funneled down some gold-plated corporate rat hole.
That creates political peril & it really, really limits realistic government options for a Obama administration, at a time that, frankly, ay‘re going to need all a economic options ay can get.
Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back
