tuscl

Extras

Thursday, April 1, 2010 11:07 PM
I wasn't sure what they were, but in reading the reviews on this site, I have to say I'm shocked. I knew for a fact a great many dancers incorporate 'extras' into their VIPs, but what's more gross to me is the fact that it seems to be a common, even imperative part of dancing. I'm the only dancer I know, thus far, who actually sees the stage dancing as a progressive type of artform - blame it on my liberal arts education, I guess, lol. Therefore, while the money is nice, I'm more there for the thrill of the dance and the music. I refuse to give extras. I have been asked for them, yes, but this is my policy. If I'm giving a VIP and extras are hinted at, the suggestion is ignored - I don't even acknowledge it. If someone gets pushy about it, that's enough to make me vow to never dance for them again. If that makes me a bitch, then all right. I'd rather be a bitch than a whore. The purpose of dancing, IMHO, is to be a fantasy, to be a desirous form, a delectable, interesting, intriguing individual. The job is to entertain, not to suck/jack the customers off in the VIP room. Plus, there's the added unfairness of being a decent, hardworking dancer having to compete against tricks for income - I mean, which are you going to pick? A half-hour in which you can get whatever you want or a half-hour with simply a dance? I want to know, mostly from any other dancers on the site, if it's possible to make a living in a middle-end club without giving extras. I mean both on day and night shift. I know the girls working in a very plush, glossy, high-end strip bar can go home with 1000+ each night, but that's because of the calibre of the place. On the other hand, I also understand that day shift is supposedly the 'extras shift.' Commentary?

111 comments

  • samsung1
    •
    14 years ago
    To each their own. I'm assuming since you went through a liberal arts education and you have access to a computer/internet you must be from a semi-wealthy background. You have no NEED to make extra money because you know you have a sense of security. If you grew up poor and on welfare then maybe you would have the mentality of "gotta do whatever it takes to make money". I think it also varies by city and what you define as being an extra. In some clubs a HJ is standard while others consider that a hot extra. I would just keep doing your thing if it is working for you :) You are attractive enough that you don't have to do that...but why would anyone want to spend money dancing with a fugly unless they were getting extras lol
  • samsung1
    •
    14 years ago
    Also I suppose if the dancer was a drug addict her point of view on the world would be different and think of extras as OK.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    Agreed. Part of me feels bad for judging, as if I was on a pedestal, which is absolutely not true, but if I'm gonna spend 6hrs of my time being evaluated, then, hey ;)
  • potheadpl
    •
    14 years ago
    I don't pick dancers for VIP because they do extras. I pick them because they're really gorgeous OR because they're great dancers. I may be the exception here, but I don't actively seek extras @ the SC. I'm too paranoid about getting caught to enjoy it anyway.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    From what I've seen, you kind of ARE the exception :D It's refreshing. Don't meet too many of those types anywhere.
  • samsung1
    •
    14 years ago
    Quit smoking soo much weed potheadpl and you won't be so paranoid lol. I agree though if you are in a club where you are not friends with the staff then proceed with caution.
  • Ironcat
    •
    14 years ago
    Getting extras is pretty high risk with all the sexually transmitted diseases out there. I think you would find that many guys that frequent strip clubs won't really cross the line for that reason. I am a happily married man and the last thing I would want to do is bring home an STD to my wife. I do like a good grind and lots of contact, but beyond that my junk stays in my pants.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    Extras are extra. I've had, and will continue to have enjoyable dances from girls who, like you, wouldn't even consider giving extras. Depending on the club, I don't think it's a given that "no extras" equals "no success." Will I *take* extras if I can get 'em? You bet, with the appropriate protection, but, previously posted macho rhetoric on my part notwithstanding, I don't consider them the only measure of my enjoyment by any means.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    Interesting. I was actually resigned to getting more of a negative reaction to my forward approach regarding extras, but, so far, it's been enlightening.
  • samsung1
    •
    14 years ago
    We are all just being nice to you fetish_dancer because we want to get in your pants :p
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    samsung: Well, duh. But the chase is half the fun. :)
  • mmdv26
    •
    14 years ago
    After too many years of "just getting dances", things changed at my fav club and extra's became more common. Nowadays, I go the club looking for and expecting sex. Sometimes I will get a dance from a girl who I know does not do extra's, but it's only one or two dances. And it's usually because I truly believe that one day, on that dance, she will have a change of heart and start doing extra's right then and there. A classic example of the insanity that accompanies the chase. fetish_dancer, don't worry about not doing extra's. The whores are lazy. That's why they do extra's - fewer dances, same money. It doesn't sound like you are chemically dependent, or have a couch potato bf who thinks he's a pimp, or any of the other "whore-maker" conditions in your life. Avoid being critical of the extra-givers. They are very popular these days! You do your thing and let them do theirs. You might have to do more dances, but you will be able to look at yourself in the mirror and be proud that you are living by the values you have established for yourself. Hey, thanks for the dance...
  • minnow
    •
    14 years ago
    f_d: Re- last paragraph- For that, may I suggest going to stripperweb or [view link] on the question of whether one can make a good living from not having "to do more than dance". Being that tuscl is a customer oriented site, and I'm a customer... Yes, there is a wide range of expectations, but, bottom line is that there are a lot of clubs (double the number now vs early mid 90's) AND dancers competing for a finite number of customer $$$. Couple in the crappy economy, those with discretionary income expect some bang for their $$. You're probably not that different from stripclub patrons in your consumer choices. If you found out that a dancer paid the same price for silk underwear that you paid for cotton/whatever, would you not seek out the store that dancer got hers from vs your store??
  • lopaw
    •
    14 years ago
    It is true that nowadays extras are pretty much the norm in many clubs. I've seen plenty of gals be successful w/o offering anything more than a sensual dance, but it is getting harder for them to compete for $$$. Seems the true art of exotic dancing is almost extinct now, and that's a damn shame.
  • Player11
    •
    14 years ago
    At the club where I am VIP, extras are the norm. Probably about 75% of the girls do them. I really am not a fan of buying $100 in dances when I can get pussy for $100 - $150 inside the club. A lot of them don't make me use condoms (are they drunk?) and it is so much fun shooting a load into them. I have fake business cards to avoid questions later on. If a girl does not give extras there she will not survive. I could c dancing as an artform like on the beatoff channel. Those ROB's on EDN did not like my comments about extras so I am no longer allowed to post there. I believe dancers can be artistic but Mr H has to agree.....
  • SuperDude
    •
    14 years ago
    Extras became the norm in Detroit in the past 5 years. And then the backlash, discussed elsewhere, kicked in. It's too early to tell what will happen. F_d will not do extras and will not dance for Black customers. Hmm.
  • Mr.White
    •
    14 years ago
    if your good onstage you'll get the costomers.if your hot you'll get the money.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @SuperDude: I never said I wouldn't dance for black guys. I said I didn't like to. As a rule, they don't like my look, my attire, my stage name, or my music. I'm there to have fun, not totally change my persona for every thug who walks in the place. Also, they're the only patrons who try to pay me for services OTC; white blokes never try to solicit that way. I am a dancer entertaining gentlemen. If the patrons are able to pick and choose, I am, as well.
  • casualguy
    •
    14 years ago
    I do enjoy a high contact lap dance. If a dancer isn't making the lap dance any better than tipping at the stage, then what is the point in getting a lap dance? I do not like air dances. If a club offers only air dances, then if the area will support it, the club may make enough business to stay open. I won't even visit unless the girls are very hot 10's unless they have something else to offer like change in ones instead of two dollar bills and they serve bottled beer later in the evening than the other clubs etc. etc.
  • DandyDan
    •
    14 years ago
    Fetish_dancer- It all depends on which club you dance at. While more of them these days do have extras as standard, there are still places where it's not and the girls just dance. It seems the trick for you is to find one of those places.
  • Dudester
    •
    14 years ago
    fetish, in LA, I think it's possible to make a living withot the extras, but I'm just guessing. I go to clubs seeking the extras, however, it's because: A) I've given up on ever having a solid relationship. It's just not in the cards for me. A stripper is a surrogate for me. B) It's not like "hey baby, you will (fill in the blank)". I have a gift and some dancers realize that. The ones who trust me realize that it's a tender love makingsession, not just a quick fuck. I actually see to her orgasm before I pursue my own. Some dancers have liked my approach so much that they gave me a discount rate (one offered a full refund-telling me she felt guilty for getting off). I guess the guys in their life don't give a shit about their orgasm.
  • uscue13
    •
    14 years ago
    I'm a regular patron at my local clubs and never have I solicited extras. However, some of my favorites give extras and some don't. That's not a prerequisite for me. I enjoy a lady that gives a good dance, and my top three all fit that mold. Like someone else mentioned, the ones that do extras seem to be content talking/sitting in the back for a long time and then come out and try to make a lot of money on one guy by doing extras (which I must say after reading Ironcat's response, I think extras isn't restricted to sex, bj, etc., but anything above a normal dance -- not necessarily something you can get an STD from). To fetish_dancer, I'm a black guy and I don't fit the view you have for black customers. Maybe it's since we're from different states. I like all the music you listed in the other post (Evanescence is one of my faves, I've been to numerous Linkin Park concerts, and hard rock is one of my favorite genres). I saw the photo you had up yesterday and thought you looked pretty. I'm definitely not a thug and as a result don't dress that way in the club. And like I mentioned, I don't solicit extras. So maybe it's just the community around where your club is, but you shouldn't just completely rule all of us out, although it's your right to approach whoever you want for a dance. It just seems like you had a bad experience or two and a result are stereotyping an entire group of people for it.
  • steve229
    •
    14 years ago
    Its possible - DC allows (nude) stage dancing, but strictly no contact, no laps. I personally don't go to those clubs. I like the "girlfriend experience", which to me involves some mutual touching (not necessarily extras). I mean you wouldn't want a girlfriend that you had to spend lots of money on but she wouldn't let you touch her...oh, wait, now that I think about it, I used to have a girlfriend like that, lol.
  • casualguy
    •
    14 years ago
    Some people's and clubs definitions of an extra may be different as well. In some clubs an extra may be getting to touch a dancer's breasts and/or nipples. Apparently in other clubs it is skin to skin genital contact. There are probably some clubs where an extra is thought of as grinding heavily with clothes on since air dances may be common.
  • rickdugan
    •
    14 years ago
    Wow, been a long time since I heard the "we are the fantasy" thing - I think it was some newbie girl who was working at a club in Manhattan. I think you are a bit naive in your belief system (all due respect). This is, and always has been, an understandable outcropping of this business. If you mix guys with money and girls that strip to obtain money, there is going to be some peripheral (or in some clubs very open) sex trading. To wish otherwise is as useful as wishing that the sky was not blue. What you seem to want is to be able to sell the theory without being expected to sell the reality. Hey, I get it, but it is naive to think that a fair number of guys aren't going to try to turn the supposed fantasy into a reality, or for the right price that some girls aren't also selling the whole package. I have also heard the phrase before that "I am a stripper, not a whore." As a routine club visitor I understand the difference, but before you climb onto the moral high horse you should understand that 90% of the general population doesn't know, or care, about the difference and lumps you into the same mental category. This is not meant to be mean, but just a reality check. It is fine for you to have standards, but I think you need to toughen up a little in your emotional understanding of the issues that are going to come up when you are peddling the "fantasy" on a stage with your clothes off.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @uscue: I have had a lot of fun with black guys in clubs before. The older ones, it seems, like more to talk and have a good time than spend the entire conversation commenting on how they don't like my name or they want to date me OTC. I don't mean to stereotype; it's more a cursory reaction than anything, because once I sit down with a guy, regardless of colour, and I get to know what he's like, a decision can be made then. To me, someone who's not tipping anyone except the dark, dark dancers, who wants me to dance for them for free, and who demands I take my chain accessories off is not someone I'm going to spend time with. And those types are easy to spot right away. @casualguy: I don't count those as extras. I don't appreciate my nipples being twisted, licked, or kissed, but touching is all right. I count HJs, BJs, or FS as extras. My VIP dances are always high contact, but not high mileage. Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 'high contact' mean a dance with lots of sliding, grinding, and movement against the patron, whereas 'high mileage' means basically how far a dancer will let you go..? Right? :D /lame @rickdugan: As I've pointed out before, I'm not on a pedestal or a moral high horse. I also recognize the fact that many, many men enter an SC with the intention of turning it into something else. My issue with extras is two-layered; if you're going to be a whore, stand on the street corner. Get a pimp. Don't compete against actual workers for the same wages. It's the same in any business; as an employee, aren't you going to be insulted if Joe Slacker-who-doesn't-do-shit keeps his job by brow-nosing and makes the same amount as you do, when YOU'RE the one working? It's basic Marxist theory. To each his own, according to his own merit. I have merit and I have talent. Therefore, my moralism and my voice on the matter is valid. The second part of my "issue" with it is that it puts the rest of the actual dancers at risk by compromising their health because "she's the girl that gives extras." Let's say she gives a HJ in the back, and because she's too fucked-up on drugs to give a shit, she leaves traces of semen on whatever she touches. Not only is that simply nasty, no one knows if that particular patron is carrying something. I know YOU don't care, but the rest of us do. I'm speaking from a dancer's perspective; you're speaking from a patron's. There's a disconnect here. Stripping is a valid business, and while I recognize that whores and dancers are grouped the same mentally, no dancer should be denigrated for not going the whole nine yards in the VIP room. /end rant.
  • rickdugan
    •
    14 years ago
    Fetish, actually Marx said' "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" which was a bastardization of an ancient Greek principle of justice, "To each his own, according to his own merit." But I digress ;) God bless Capitalism, where your takehome is the sum total of the value that "patrons" placed on your services on a given night. Also, it is an oversimplistic fallacy to believe that your takehome might go up a lot if other girls played by the same rules - it could simply be that fewer patrons would come to the club, or that your income would go up a little but not a lot. Also, if a guy has $500 in his pocket and he spends it on a back room jobbie, then that does not mean that he would have spent the $500 on lap dances if the "extra" was not available. He may have spent $200 on lap dances and kept the rest in his pocket to pursue activities elsewhere. Net-net, you are not competing for the "same wage" per se. While you might ocassionally lose a bit of money to a girl who offers other things, on a routine basis there is not necessarily a direct correlation between your income and the sale of additional services as the other girl may be selling to someone that was not going to spend much on other things, or may not have come in at all if it were not on the menu. I have nothing to say about the "picking up an STD off of a toilet" theory then: REALLY? I agree that nobody should be denigrated for making personal choices, but moralizing becuase others don't make the same choices is pointless - it won't help you. The smart girls that don't do extras develop other ways to compete in the market, such as: 1. Cultivating clients who like to make personal connections; 2. Referral fee arrangements with other girls who do these things (or two girl dances where one does the lifting but the other still gets paid to be in the room); and/or 3. working in a club that is strict about rule enforcement. End of re-rant (as well as lessons in Poli Sci and Econ concepts).
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    I like you, RD. You provide challenging conversation. I prefer the Greek precept, then, bastardized or otherwise. However, Marx's original words mean the same thing to me. If you have the mental ability to take someone back to VIP and have the NEED to perform extras in order to further your finances...well, then, there's the precept for you. But maybe I'm reading too far into something that's supposed to be a political metaphor, haha. I agree, Capitalism be blessed, (but I still will always hold Marxism as an interesting ideal, lol.) however, I think actual dancers are losing more than a bit of money to the few tramps in a club. If a patron has $500 he's willing to spend on a HJ, BJ, or whatever, but is only willing to spend $200 on just dances, that means the actual dancers are out $300, right? Let's say there's three guys in a SC, each with $500 in their pockets. If two of them blow their wad (pun intended) on a jobbie in the VIP, that means the rest of the dancers, as a collective whole, are out $1000. That's a lot of cash, especially in this economy. And, anyway, SCs are a bit more socialist than capitalist - we want the patrons to 'spread the wealth!' LOL! As far as catching an STD off a toilet or anything else, hey, I'm not saying it happens all the time, but there's the potential for it to happen when there doesn't have to be. You're right; my moralizations are pointless. In a SC, it's something to ignore, but it's also unfair, imho. Nevertheless, my moralizations are still valid, at least to me, and at least to the dancers who are following the bulletted points you've laid out.
  • rickdugan
    •
    14 years ago
    I like you - you are tenacious. I will agree that on a given night it might cost you a bit, though your example still assumes that the guys would have spent their entire wads there with or without the extra. Let's meet in the middle and say that, if there were no special services available, one guy spends his wad either way (a sucker who gets drunk and continues to roll) and the other guy gets his $200 in lap dances (spread out over many dancers) then takes his remaining $300 to a local massage parlor for a happy ending ;) In this situation, the introduction of the "bad" dancer into the mix puts $1000 into the hands of the whore, but only $700 of that would have been spent if the bad dancer did not exist. Having said this, in clubs where this happens there are usually a number of guys coming to the club that would not be there if such services did not exist, so there is some counterweight there, but enough said. On the socialist thing, you must work at a much nicer club than the ones I frequent. In most of the clubs, the "sisters in arms" would cut each others' throats (figuratively) to pick up a big score. In my experiences strip clubs are the ultimate in capitalist expetriments :) I was recently at a club where, when my choice for the night went on stage, another girl came over, asked me if I liked her for her big tits, and when I shrugged said, "Well, my pussy is tighter." LOL I know it sucks to be in a position where you are a woman with morals in an unprincipled world, but I have no doubt that you are smart enough to work out a way to take down the money. If you are indeed the youngest in your club then you may want to find a better club (translation - one with more money and tighter rules) ;) .
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    :) My example still takes into account your theory that a guy with $500 WOULD spend it all in one place for an extra. It's 50/50, I s'pose. I actually frequent more "divey" places. I like the ambiance, the blue-collar men who come in, and the other girls are much nicer than they are at higher-end clubs. I also pointed out, earlier, perhaps in a different thread, that I don't have the build that the highest-end clubs in Indianapolis are looking for. Not fat, not skinny, and I'm au naturel, which is apparently a big no-no. I guess fake tits are "en vogue." I'd rather work at a middle-end club where my curves and energy are appreciated than work a stage amongst a bunch of cold, fake girls. I think I would have a problem there, moreso than I do or ever have had in the clubs I work at. But it's all about finding a niche, and I haven't found mine yet. Your tips and advice will be remembered; I've appreciated your words.
  • rickdugan
    •
    14 years ago
    Good luck! And if I am ever in Indianapolis I will look you up at Sassy Kats, if for nothing else just to meet the most literate pole girl I have ever corresponded with ;)
  • LeeH
    •
    14 years ago
    I'm with the ones that don't go *seeking* extras, but don't turn them down if the dancer introduces the concept first. I'm sure there are dancers that I've taken to VIP that would give extras if *I* asked, but I've been content thus far. ;-) If I had to guess, I'd say that the percentage of extras claimed on this site is a good bit higher than actuality. We guys never get over the locker-room bragging.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @Rick: Sounds good! @Lee: Lol, I was wondering about that.
  • Player11
    •
    14 years ago
    I will go to certain clubs if I am not in extras seeking mode. This will usually be for the free buffet and probably a couple of dances. If the extras club where I am VIP it has been mainly with a gal I have been seeing itc and otc POP averaging $135. These meetings are set up before I go to club so when I get there we go to VIP or CR for sex.
  • Danton
    •
    14 years ago
    I have noticed that in general the highest rated clubs are those that offer "extras". The most extreme example are the clubs in Mexico. Personally what I look for are attractive woman and just having fun- The most fun I had was at the old Tropicana in LA- which featured mud wrestling and really gorgeous girls in bikinis. Didn't go for the wrestling but enjoyed the gorgeous bodies and killer smiles. The way most clubs operate these days the only way dancers can make money is to perform dances which are often forced. The inevitable question is "do you want a dance" and girls will often leave in a huff if rejected, no payoff for their 5-10 minutes of preliminary conversation. Many dancers are obviously there just to extract as many dances as possible from the customers "Extras" may be satisfying in a freudian sense but are too clinical,devoid of emotional intimacy and would be for me not fun. It also seems to me that the availability of extras is more liberal now because of the poor economy. If things get better, I am guessing that extras will be less available. Call it old fashioned but IMHO that is best left for wives and girlfriends. Of course I realize that I have a minority view based on the TUSCL top 10 list and that the tropicana closed a long time ago.
  • arbeeguy
    •
    14 years ago
    RickDugan and Fetish_Dancer, I tip my hat to both of you. This is one of the most interesting and enlightening threads I have ever read on TUSCL or anywhere else. F_D - I have a question I hope you will answer. Where did you get your education? I am betting it was not in the United States. F_D - just a comment about the following quote from one of your very fine posts: "if you're going to be a whore, stand on the street corner. Get a pimp. Don't compete against actual workers for the same wages." My comment is, "whore", like "extra" can mean a lot of different things. I fully support your desire to not be a whore, not be mis-identified as a whore, and not associate with whores. But what, exactly IS A WHORE? Is there an actual line that can be drawn? For instance, a few years ago, a sweet young thing was sitting on my lap grinding hard, and for some reason decided it would be fun to get me off (we had not discussed this idea, let alone negotiated a price.) Did the heavy grinding that ensued make her a WHORE? When I didn't come she had an inspiration - totally unexpected by me - and slipped her hand down my pants, and then I came. Is she a WHORE yet? Neither of us propositioned the other to go any farther. But going a little further down the path toward "Extras", even if a girl does do extras in the club, do you feel she should therefore be labeled as a "WHORE" and forced to go out on the sidewalk and hire a pimp? This is very hypothetical of course, because part of the strip club game for many of us is doing stuff that the club does not allow. And sometimes that stuff is nothing caressing a girl's breat or a guy's groin, through clothing. And if it is not allowed, it is extra. So my point, I guess is, all generalizations are false, including this one.
  • Player11
    •
    14 years ago
    fetish-dancer I appreciate your input. I also like middle-end clubs sometimes and prefer gals which are au-natuarl, not fat or skinny. I used to enjoy such a club where dances were $10 (no VIP area, so no extras decisions), free buffet / menu lunches, and just plain fun. They were jammed packed on Wednesdays as that was $5 dance day. Unfortunately this place is no longer here (Houston). I can understand your frustration with the extras girls taking away huge chunks of money. What a lot of dancers probably are not aware of is the [view link] call girls taking money away from the clubs. I can get some here from them for as little as $80.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @Danton: Just a comment on clubs in Mexico - something to think about. Are you sure those girls are all of-age? After all, it IS Mexico, where a girl is considered to be a woman as soon as puberty occurs, which can be as young as nine years old. The Quinceañera, a celebration of a girl's fifteenth year, comparable to our own 'sweet sixteen' parties, automatically inducts her into adult society. Therefore, with the rules so lax in Mexico regarding intercourse between underage girls and grown men, I would be careful, if I were you. That being said, I would also agree that, in the current economic climate, perhaps extras are more expected and provided. Your note about Freud also pleases me; I love his works and I can see it plays a role in just about every day-to-day situation. The lack of emotional intimacy is also part of the reason I'm against providing such services - although I AM an entertainer and my job is to disrobe for the patrons' pleasure, sex in and of itself is something I hold incredibly sacred, monogamy even moreso. Hard to believe from a stripper, I know, but that is what I base my club "ethics" on. @arbeeguy: Actually, I did get my education in the US. :P Good ol' west coast. Liberal arts education, focus in creative writing, modern dance, and theatre. To answer your second question, I'm going to stick to my guns and say yes, she is. To be fair, I know for a fact a few of the girls I'm friends with ITC ARE doing extras during their shifts. ITC, I'll turn a blind eye to it, although I am put out that I am losing money because of their actions. Again, we have a divide; you are a male patron, I am a female dancer. Dancers are independent contractors, meaning we don't get paid. I know some clubs pay their dancers a little, but for the most part, the only money we go home with is the tips patrons stick into our thongs, lol. Mr. Dugan pointed out that whores and dancers are grouped together in the same category MENTALLY, but that doesn't mean it's a fair reality. If you're going to peddle sexual favours, you need to find a different venue in which to hawk your wares, NOT an SC, where honest girls are attempting to make a living. Basically, if you're taking money from us by providing extras, that is unfair and you need to leave. @Player-11: Exactly! I've heard of [view link] and I wish SC whores would just go there. In fact, I'd bet they'd make more money as an escort, seeing how they can charge whatever they want, while SCs have set prices for stuff ;) If you're whoring, leave the clubs to us and take the night as your oyster. I have a fetish for exhibitionism and BDSM - some girls just like pleasuring perfect strangers, like the sweet little dancer arbeeguy pointed out. That's a fetish, (to each her own, I say) but it shouldn't be used to exploit a valid business.
  • Danton
    •
    14 years ago
    to fetish_dancer My point was that on this site generally the highest rate clubs are those that offer the most extras , but I don't use that criteria. There is no FUN factor, I would rather see gorgeous dancers who dance only for instance Camelot in DC and whom I can talk to rather than dancers who are hustling for dances all the time and won't take no for an answer. Having said that, there are clubs which are between the "hustle" clubs and the "extras" type clubs but is highly variable depending on geographical location.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @Danton: Point taken. Speaking of dances, since aggressive dance-sellers seem to be a turn-off, what do YOU (and everyone else) think of girls who don't even mention VIP during your conversation with them? I don't. Or ask for drinks. Too many of my coworkers push and push and PUSH those things, and so I try not to. Plus, I'm rather shy about selling dances, for reasons unknown even to me. A dollar dance is one thing; offering a VIP dance is another, lol.
  • Danton
    •
    14 years ago
    fetish_dancer The dilemma from a dancers viewpoint it seems to me is that the only way to make money is via tips and in particularly lap dances. The bottom line ultimately must be enough monetary return to make it worth your while (unless you are in it just for dancing), not that you have to make a killing each day but if your colleagues are offering more than you and making significantly more, it must not seem fair. An analogy might be baseball players who cheat by taking steroids who then hit more home runs, become stars and command a bigger salary while the honestlose out. On the other hand, if the monetary return is enough to satisfy you as an individual there is no problem. Most guys do not like to be pushed for dances but I can understand how that happens but it should be ok to say no thanks too. In the detroit area it seems like thestage is a means of personal advertisement for dances, the dancers are like temptresses for private dances. In DC the stage show is all there is and for me is more fun.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @Danton: The money is nice, but I have a day job, so I really am just in it for the lights, music, and dancing :) Good analogy. I love being on stage and I have been told that I work way too hard for a dollar...but to me, it's not work :P
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "My issue with extras is two-layered; if you're going to be a whore, stand on the street corner. Get a pimp." Yea, but that's blatantly illegal, while what goes on in a strip club (when it comes to "extras" anyways) is technically illegal but not readily viewable to all, usually. "Not only is that simply nasty, no one knows if that particular patron is carrying something. I know YOU don't care" Actually, I think most of us *do* care. I, for one, don't even want to think about what nasty stuff is on the couches in some strip clubs. I am neat & clean, and I try to keep myself that way at all times. "The Quinceañera, a celebration of a girl's fifteenth year, comparable to our own 'sweet sixteen' parties, automatically inducts her into adult society." Hmmmmm, that puts an interesting spin on one of my cousin's Quinceañera that I attended a few years ago...lol...scary... "Therefore, with the rules so lax in Mexico regarding intercourse between underage girls and grown men, I would be careful, if I were you." In Mexico, prostitution is decriminalized & regulated at the state level. One must be at least 18, registered, pay for & receive health checks, and carry their health card. In Tijuana, the city council passed a law that requires the town's active prostitutes (around 5,000 are being tested each month!) to have monthly medical exams for STDs & that forces brothel owners to adopt more sanitary practices. Pimping in Mexico is illegal though. For what it's worth, I've been offered & turned down "extras" (by dancers that just don't do it for me personally) waaaaaay more times than I've ever asked for them. It depends on what part of the world you are doing your strip clubbing in. Like others have said, there are plenty of regions where "extras" aren't the norm at all or where they are basically legal and/or tolerated.
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    Unfortunately, it's not a good economy now which tends to squeeze fantasy dancers. Guys don't have the same disposable funds and/or access to company spending accounts many strip clubs thrive on. Clubs therefore either close down or look the other way as dancers push the boundaries in search of income.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @MisterGuy: It may not be viewable, while standing on the streetcorner is, but all of the dancers know it. It doesn't matter whether or not it's "viewable" by everyone; a whore is taking money and ruining the legitimate business of real dancers. You've just pointed out the exact reason why whoring is gotten away with in SCs - because it's low-key. Doesn't make it right or fair. Well, then, good for you, but remember, if you're getting a HJ in a strip club, you're contributing to the filth you profess not to be a part of, both financially and healthwise ;) Prostitution may be legal there, but that doesn't mean every whore is 18. Because the rules regarding it only seem to come into play on the subject of sexual health, that leaves a more lax lee-way for underage girls to be inducted into the system. To each his own. I don't really have an issue with the guys who are getting these things in SCs - you aren't going to see it the way a valid dancer does. Just don't expect it from every dancer in the club simply because you've gotten it from a few. That is the request of us minority group not performing extras. @CTQWERTY: That's what I'm seeing more and more. I'm deliberating over whether or not this will be my last month dancing...
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    I'm not surprised. As one wise dancer told me, the smart girls dance for supplemental income and thereby can turn down 'extras' requests, etc. With the supplemental income pie shrinking, it would be a good time for going back to school. Especially since last I heard the Obama administration is going to raise Pell Grant funding from $40 billion to $50 billion in the next budget.
  • Danton
    •
    14 years ago
    Yes, if it bothers you, either quit, move on to another club or ignore it. What others do does not affect what is right for you and you don't need the money. There must be plenty of other venues for women who like to dance. Strip club dancing is obviously time- limited, it is certainly not a career. The smart ones IMHO see it as a temporary measure towards another goal (eg college degree, whatever). I feel sorry for older dancers for whom it is the only source of income with no plans for progressing beyond it.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @CTQWERTY: Yep. I'm attending school, I write for royalties, and I work in the finance business, so it's safe to say this is merely a thrill-seeking venture for me. @Danton: I'm probably going to relocate to another club and just devote myself to ignoring it. And, about the older dancers, I feel sorry for them, too. I can't see myself doing this for longer than a year, two years tops.
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    I commend two of the three; the finance business unfortunately went 'crackhead' on the rest of us. When and if the moment arises elected officials decline campaign contributions from lobbyists representing the finance industry because the damage done has become too big to ignore, we might finally see some long overdue prosecutions. I wonder what the explanation will be as to why those who were in a position to self-regulate didn't do so?
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    Well, I think I'll enjoy it for the moment. The matter of self-regulation/non-regulation is a lose/lose situation. If you have a big corp. that doesn't self-regulate, you have a problem, but if you allow the gov't to step in and regulate everything, you have an even bigger problem.
  • arbeeguy
    •
    14 years ago
    Hi CTQWERTY -- I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the congressman to stop accepting the generosity of lobbyists. Don't think we are going to see prosecutions for lack of self-regulating in the financial industry, either. Failing to self-regulate is not a crime, so what's to prosecute. Failing to obey regulations may be a crime, but that is not what you referred to. I think fetish_dancer is JUST FINE working in the financial industry, as are at least 99.9% of all those in low- and middle-level positions. I hope she brings her strong sense of ethics with her and contributes to the upgrading of the financial industry. GOOD LUCK TO YOU FETISH DANCE. Please keep us informed of your experiences and your viewpoint. You are a breath of fresh air on this discussion board.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    Aww, thanks! I'll keep you guys updated. I'm auditioning at a couple of clubs this next week, so I'll inform you which one I'm hired at :)
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    Hello, Arbee. Surely those keeping the books consisting of massive exposure to housing mortgages, derivative investments, securitized products, etc., must've had some inkling as to what was going on at some point before Bear Stearns needed an emergency bailout and Lehman Bros. was allowed to collapse (they mathematically model just about everything-- pray tel what did the models reveal if the housing market were to turn?) Indeed many of the fly-by-night mortgage origination outfits were going bust in 2007. The handwriting was "on the wall" for anyone who had exposure to the crap which was going bad (that's what 2008 was about, until Hank Paulsen showed up saying he needed $750 billion asap, "no questions asked and no oversight.") Two weeks ago it made the rounds on the internet that Lehman's accounting was a fraud, and banking analyst Dick Bove said the former CEO is going to spend the "rest of his days defending himself in court." Too bad the guy only pocketed $500 million in executive compensation prior to the collapse. More recently The Fed has finally acknowledged some of the Bear Stearns paper they took on to bailout the firm is crap. I have a strong feeling "as the lender of last resort", The Fed has been stuffedd full of garbage. Why hasn't the "shit hit the fan"? Whereas priorly we were funded by foreign governments buying U.S. Treasuries, now I believe the stat is The Fed is buying over 90% of the supply. Ben Bernanke is creating money "from air" to buy them and hold. It's the same practice we looked down on 3rd world countries for doing. Will it work? Probably so long as no one audits The Fed. Self-regulation: if they practiced it, there wouldn't be any need for governmental regulation. Instead they went with no regulation, and delivered a headless corpse into the lap of the U.S. government (ie Hank Paulsen and his "I need $750 billion asap" or what he stole from the U.S. Taxpayer in broad daylight.) What's to prosecute? Somehow the national debt mushroomed to $11.4 trillion after all of the bailouts. I'm guessing that's enough smoke to warrant many investigations. [A good read is "Bailout Nation" by Barry Ritholtz.] I know I'm skipping around but it's tought to type and edit into such a small box. Maybe Founder will at least double the "reply size window" someday?
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "Well, then, good for you, but remember, if you're getting a HJ in a strip club, you're contributing to the filth you profess not to be a part of, both financially and healthwise" Hey, I never said that I've never gotten an "extra" in the strip club. What I said is that I always try to keep myself clean & safe. As for the "extras" dancers potentially taking money away from the non-extra dancers, that really can't be helped IMHO. Several people here have already given you some advice on how to deal with that. "Prostitution may be legal there, but that doesn't mean every whore is 18." True, but the exact same thing could be said here in the USA. While I bet that underage prostitution isn't as prevalent here in the USA as in other countries, it does still exist. At least Mexico (like NV I guess) is trying to take some steps to keep people safe. "Just don't expect it from every dancer in the club simply because you've gotten it from a few." I think that goes without saying...good luck... ------------------------------------------------- "I wonder what the explanation will be as to why those who were in a position to self-regulate didn't do so?" Greed..."self-regulation" is really, basically a myth IMO. "pray tel what did the models reveal if the housing market were to turn?" That's the whole point. The housing market was never "expected" to make a huge downturn. All they saw were piles & piles of money to be made in the future, as if being in the banking industry alone didn't turn them a tidy enough profit. Again, this was just pure greed. "I have a strong feeling 'as the lender of last resort', The Fed has been stuffedd full of garbage." I dunno about "full", but surely they have some crap on their balance sheet now. "Whereas priorly we were funded by foreign governments buying U.S. Treasuries, now I believe the stat is The Fed is buying over 90% of the supply." No, I seriously doubt that this is true. "Ben Bernanke is creating money 'from air' to buy them and hold." The Fed can't "create" anything...only the U.S. govt. can print & issue new money. The Fed just gets to "buy" that money at the cost to produce the actual bills, which is literally several pennies on the dollar. "Self-regulation: if they practiced it, there wouldn't be any need for governmental regulation." LOL...which is why the scurry to deregulate the financial industry in the late 1990s was a HUGE mistake. "ie Hank Paulsen and his 'I need $750 billion asap' or what he stole from the U.S. Taxpayer in broad daylight." A whole lot of that bank bailout money is being (or has been) paid back with interest. Heck, it looks like we may even see some (likely not all) of the auto bailout money paid back the same way at some point in the near future. "Somehow the national debt mushroomed to $11.4 trillion after all of the bailouts." Yea, but it was roughly $8.5-9 Trillion (or around $7 Trillion in 2000 inflation-adjusted dollars) before all those bailouts that started in 2008...or at roughly 60ish% of the GDP, with around $5-6 Trillion held by "the public" (which is basically money that we owe ourselves). We're waaaay off-topic BTW...
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    Mr. G.: The Fed is the majority buyer of U.S. Treasuries now, and Fannie and Freddie are over 90% of the mortgage market. We have massive government activity in the private sector now. Sorry, don't have more time to go into further details. Off-topic?!? Say it ain't so...
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    By the way, paid back? If The Fed loans it at 0% and the banks lend it at 5%, they're getting a huge gift everyday (since the crisis began.) That coupled with the accounting rules being loosened allowed lowly Citibank to say they were profitable in the first two months last year. From then the market rebounded.
  • DoctorDarby
    •
    14 years ago
    Damn I love this board! Fetish_Dancer, you are exactly the type of girl who keeps me going to places with virtually non-existent extra opportunities. You are smart, feisty, artistic, and interesting; we would get along splendidly and I would happily pay for dances on your terms and be thrilled. Your posts have generated some excellent and honest responses from the regulars here that reveal the wide range of experiences and expectations that customers have in clubs of all types. Over my 30 years of clubbing, I have generally been a "nice guy" who rarely expected extras of any type. In the last few months I have been offered more than I can ever remember, some of which has been delivered and some was just dancer BS. I think there is still a big space in the business for women like you who want to entertain, tease, and titillate; and as long as your lap dances give an honest grind for a fair price, you will have many regulars come back to enjoy the whole package.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @the two discussing financial terms: I appreciate the derailment, actually. I work as a commercial loans broker and since I'm relatively new to it, I like the back-and-forth banter. I've learned a few things. What I can tell you is this: the FED rate is currently 0.14% and it WILL change in the next six months. Any small business owner who doesn't refinance with a company offering a good product is in high dancer of losing their business. I recently met a guy running a car dealership, and he's paying 7.1% as his rate, but it added up to 9% in fees. If the FED rises, he'll lose his business. ANYWAY, I'm not going to advertise my company here, but if there are any small business owners looking to refinance, contact me :) @DoctorDarby: Thanks for the compliments! There are a lot of people here I think I'd get along with - perhaps I'll get to meet a few of you. As far as the 'grind for a good price,' let's just say I've never 'air-danced' before and don't plan to.
  • arbeeguy
    •
    14 years ago
    Best Thread Ever Published on This Board. Where do we go from here? F_D you must come up with another provccative topic and then inject some incisive comments where appropriate. I used to think that discussing financial matters and politics was "off-topic" but now I'm not so sure. Like Doctor Darby, I would welcome a lap dance with F_D on F_D's terms. Unfortunately I live a long ways from Indianapolis, so it probably won't happen. Hey, has anybody reading this thread ever met F_D? Some of you have met Shadowcat, some of you have met JudyJudy. I think F_D can continue to play a positive role in TUSCL and in our hobby. Hope to see more reviews and more discussion involving this person. AND PHOTOS ARE UNNECESSARY.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    F_D: Indeed. I'm not qualified to speak on financial topics, so I've just "watched," but I agree with those who find it a refreshing thing. I've met dancers who are good, knowledgeable conversationalists, but it seems to take some time to get them to loosen up enough to admit and demonstrate it. If you do this type of thing in the club where you dance, I'm just sorry you don't work in Louisville. :) Oh, and ignore areeguy and his "unnecessary pictures" comment. I'm a horny old pervert, even if I do like conversation, and I wanna see pictures, dammit! Anyway, good luck with your search for appreciation.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @arbeeguy: I think I will. It's just a matter of figuring out what the next hot topic will be >:D I don't think I've ever met anyone from here - if I have, it was not to my knowledge, probably last year, lol. @george: I do try to make good conversation, but it's a 50/50 situation. Some guys act like any sort of verbal exchange is a turnoff; others seem to like it. I remember one time in a club I met a Kentuckian, like yourself, and we had a great conversation, about all sorts of things. He was also completely sozzled, so maybe that was why it was so good, lol, but at any rate he kept giving me money. At about $30 I started to feel a little weird, and offered him a VIP, but he said no, no, just sit with me. It was odd. I still wish he would have purchased a dance instead of just handing me money. I guess it just goes to show conversation can be rewarding, too, but I just like talking with people. And funny you should mention Louisville. I might relocate to New Albany and try out the Louisville scene. We'll see....if so, I'll try Trixie's. I checked out the website. Looks nice. As far as pictures go, I'm still trying to find a good one for my profile. :D
  • how
    •
    14 years ago
    Regarding extras: I'll absolutely respect and abide by any limit any dancer establishes; however, I am unlikely to buy dances from those whose limits are less than all-the-way, since I have no interest in paying to be teased.
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    Fetish: it's not my area of expertise, but I do believe your car dealer client can buy a finance product which would insure against Fed rate increases. Have him call Bank of America if your firm doesn't handle the product. Since Bank of America acquired Merril Lynch under threat from Bernank/Paulson, they should know about the investment instrument I speak of. A parallel example was established by Prof. Robert Shiller (of the Case-Shiller Housing Index announced every month.) Shiller setup an options market for housing in 2007 on The Chicago Board of Options Exchange. He was on CNBC promoting it as a way for homeowners to purchase insurance against their home losing value. Don't know whether or not it still exists...
  • arbeeguy
    •
    14 years ago
    So now we suddenly get a nice picture of F_D - which is great - THANKS - but it is turned SIDEWAYS -- kinda FUNNY. But I can turn my laptop computer sideways to view it straight-up. (Another advantage of Laptop over Desktop.) Regarding the money for "just conversation". I am an old guy, with plenty of money to spend on things I think are worthwhile. I have done the same thing that F_D mentioned - give a girl money "just for conversation". I seldom did that before age 70, but "you can't take it with you", and I figure when she's talking to me, she can't make money giving lap dances to other guys. If a girl asked me for money for conversation, I would just laugh at her and tell her to get lost, but if she can carry on an intelligent conversation with a little flirting and maybe some G-rated touching on the side, she's well worth a VOLUNTARY DONATION on my part.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    LOL sorry to make you work so hard, arbeeguy :D
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "The Fed is the majority buyer of U.S. Treasuries now" I'll believe that when I see it in writing. "and Fannie and Freddie are over 90% of the mortgage market." Yea, but by definition they weren't a huge part of the so-called "sub-prime" meltdown because sub-prime mortgages were, by definition, not up to their own standards. "We have massive government activity in the private sector now." Well, I'm of the mind-set that not all govt. activity in the private sector is bad, but to each his own. "By the way, paid back? If The Fed loans it at 0% and the banks lend it at 5%, they're getting a huge gift everyday (since the crisis began.)" I think we may be talking about two different things here CT. A fair amount of the TARP bailout money is being paid back with interest (I dunno the rate though). The same may end up being true for at least some of the auto bailout money (again, I dunno what rates the govt. might end up getting). As for the "lender of last resort" Fed loans, who said that "the Fed has loaned anyone money at 0%"? That might be true (I doubt it), but whether it is or not (even if the rate is far below fair market value), I think many people fail to take into account the consequences of the govt. *not* making these kind of moves. How would people have liked it if the vast majority of FDIC-insured banks went under all at once at the end of 2008? That was a very real possibility that, IMHO, was avoided by the actions of our govt., whether we like it or not. I sure as heck didn't like the fact that the financial system was left to fester for so long.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    F_D, if you'll forgive the presumption, I suspect Trixie's would be a good fit for you; I have not once in the entire six or seven years I've been going there, been offered an extra of any kind to which I would apply the name. :) Its not an air dance club, but unless (allegedly) one springs for the VIP, contact is almost exclusively one way. Good grindage from all the dancers I ever tried, but absolutely hands free and visible to management. They even have a dungeon room, which I've seen used on numerous occasions. If you're interest is mostly as a top, that mght be right up your alley; most of the bachelor/birthday parties I've seen there end up with the celebrant getting his ass whipped, and not little love taps either, either in the dungeon or up on stage. I've even seen guys paraded around in their skivvies with their own belt used as a leash, with the girls riding on his back. They also have an amateur night on Sundays. In addition, the Oaks and Derby are also coming up, so if you want to give it a shot, that's probably as good a time as any. Find someone to stay with, though; the hotels and motels were sold out sometime last year. Well, except for maybe Louisville Manor, but I'm not sure I'd recommend that place to my worst enemy. It *is* a lapdance factory, no drink hustle per se, though I have been asked on occasion if I want to buy one, I didn't get the impression it was for a $20 or $30 drink, especially since there's no alcohol.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    Well, then! I'll have to check it out if I'm ever in the area. I'm not a top by any stretch, but I'm sure I would enjoy the dungeon room quite a bit.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    "I'm not a top by any stretch" <sigh> The stuff fantasies are made of. Too bad they won't let *me* anywhere near the dungeon room. :)
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    lol, why not?
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    Because I definitely *am* a top. I was only half joking about taking the whips away from you. :)
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    "I'll believe that when I see it in writing." Sent via private msg to you late last night. "Yea, but by definition they weren't a huge part of the so-called "sub-prime" meltdown because sub-prime mortgages were, by definition, not up to their own standards." I'm talking with regard to their level of involvement now. Stat is also documented in private msg previously sent. "Well, I'm of the mind-set that not all govt. activity in the private sector is bad, but to each his own." Again, you'll LOVE article #4 I sent. "A fair amount of the TARP bailout money is being paid back with interest" Barry Ritholtz, author of "Bailout Nation", blogged this on the supposed TARP profit today: [view link] "who said that "the Fed has loaned anyone money at 0%"? That might be true (I doubt it), but whether it is or not (even if the rate is far below fair market value), I think many people fail to take into account the consequences of the govt. *not* making these kind of moves." Because of the crisis, Ben Bernanke and The Fed lowered the rate which they lend to member banks (BofA, Citipoop, etc.) to just about 0% (Fetish reported .14% at her brokerage.) Yet they lend it out at 5% plus in the form of mortgages, etc. This "spread" has not been passed onto the consumer. Rather, anyone who deposits money to save it is getting something around .14% in interest on their savings account. A CD may well pay more, but typically the banks offering the highest rates are ones on the FDIC Watch List for takeover; they have too many f*cked up loans on their balance sheet and need to raise cash to fortify their reserves to keep the FDIC off their backs. Why is such a huge spread (5%) being allowed? To reliquify the banking system. Nice, huh? Don't forget the government did a full payout to AIG counterparties. Lots of the Big banks received a windfall of billions a piece. Further, the accounting rules (mark to market was suspended) regarding bad paper on their balance sheets. Did they really repay TARP with their own dough? Barry Ritholtz chimes in: [view link] "By Barry Ritholtz - December 16th, 2009, 8:30AM “The government is consciously forfeiting future tax revenues. It’s another form of assistance, maybe not as obvious as direct assistance but certainly another form. I’ve been doing taxes for almost 40 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this, where the IRS and Treasury acted unilaterally on so many fronts.” -Robert Willens, an expert on tax accounting > The ongoing transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1% continues unabated. The Treasury Department, via the IRS, has made a terrible deal with Citigroup for TARP repayment: They repay $20 billion in TARP money, and in exchange we give them keep $38 billion in tax abatements. WTF? The Washington Post has the scoop: “The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis. The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors. While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits. The IRS, an arm of the Treasury Department, has changed a number of rules during the financial crisis to reduce the tax burden on financial firms. The rule changed Friday also was altered last fall by the Bush administration to encourage mergers, letting Wells Fargo cut billions of dollars from its tax bill by buying the ailing Wachovia.” The looting of the Treasury, begun in panic under George W. Bush, continues in ignorance under Barrack W. Obama. > Source: U.S. gave up billions in tax money in deal for Citigroup’s bailout repayment Binyamin Appelbaum Washington Post, December 16, 2009 [view link] See also: A Tax Break for Citigroup With Payback of Bailout ERIC DASH NYT, December 15, 2009 [view link]"
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    This deserves it's own special breakout: "How would people have liked it if the vast majority of FDIC-insured banks went under all at once at the end of 2008? That was a very real possibility that, IMHO, was avoided by the actions of our govt., whether we like it or not." So what we did is cut a $750 billion dollar check. What was the alternative? The government cut the check, BUT keep the control. Horribly run, risk-embracing, banks, are allowed to fail. But the government guarantees the accounts (with the $750 billion.) No one loses a penny! BUT the bad actors all lose their jobs! What Hank came up with was saving most bad acting firms who embraced waaaaay too much risk, and in the process, keeping the same people in the same positions... = genius? Remember the end of the "Are You a U.S. Taxpayer" thread? How Bernanke wants to eliminate banking reserve requirements? I believe the idea is "Hey, if we (Wall St.) go overboard again and the system crashes after we've collected our commissions, Hank Paulson gave us the working model: bring the headless corpse to the stooges we endow with campaign cash and they'll cut us another giant check. And we all keep our jobs."
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    Sorry CT, nothing that you've sent to me indicated that "the Fed was the majority buyer of U.S. Treasuries now". [view link] "I'm talking with regard to their level of involvement now. Stat is also documented in private msg previously sent." Nope. Your buddy the cultural anthropologist was wrong on that too. The GSEs controlled 90% of the U.S. market for mortgages...in 2003. Nothing has changed since way back then. One can argue over whether or not that was good policy in the first place (like the GOP likes to do...because never liked the idea of the GSEs in the first place), but this issue hasn't changed in many, many years. Also, the Fed currently controls only a lil less than 25% of the financing in the housing market, and, like I said to you before, that Fed program is ending right about now. [view link] [view link] "Again, you'll LOVE article #4 I sent." Nope, I really didn't. What Catepillar was basically whining about in that article was losing the loophole that allowed them to double-dip on a tax write-off that they've had only since 2006. It's going away in 2013. The total cost per year to Cat will be less than 1% of their yearly 2009 profits! Boo-hoo... Also, so they don't want to offer coverage for people under age 27 under certain circumstances. Again, boo-hoo...they are all going to be in the same boat with other companies from now on. The Medicare Part D thing was a huge debacle. It wasn't paid for, and the benefits suck. The recently passed health care reform will allow the Part D benefits to improve...with more coverage & lower Rx drug prices over time. All this gruff from companies like Cat is just an excuse for them to curtail drug benefit programs for their retirees, which is likely what they were planning on doing anyways to maximize their bottom-line. [view link] "Barry Ritholtz, author of 'Bailout Nation', blogged this on the supposed TARP profit today" What he's complaining about is a valid issue...that not *all* of the TARP money has been paid back, yet. However, the fact remains that many of the companies, for a whole variety of reasons, have, in fact, paid back their bailout money *with interest*. I've already said that the separate auto bailout money might not all come back. Don't get me started on AIG...lol... "This 'spread' has not been passed onto the consumer." Why should it? The whole point in lending them the money was to get them to lend other people more money. That's how our financial system works as it relates to the Fed. "A CD may well pay more, but typically the banks offering the highest rates are ones on the FDIC Watch List for takeover" Who says that?? "Don't forget the government did a full payout to AIG counterparties." Again, don't get me started on AIG... "Did they really repay TARP with their own dough? Barry Ritholtz chimes in": "While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits." Hmmmm, your buddy is only telling half of the story: "Treasury officials said the most recent change was part of a broader decision initially made last year to shelter companies that accepted federal aid under the Troubled Assets Relief Program from the normal consequences of such an investment. Officials also said the ruling benefited taxpayers because it made shares in Citigroup more valuable and asserted that without the ruling, Citigroup could not have repaid the government at this time. 'This rule was designed to stop corporate raiders from using loss corporations to evade taxes, and was never intended to address the unprecedented situation where the government owned shares in banks,' Treasury spokeswoman Nayyera Haq said. 'And it was certainly not written to prevent the government from selling its shares for a profit.'" "All nine firms that took federal money last October now have approved plans to pay it back." "Citigroup was required to replace its federal aid with an equal amount of money from private investors, more than any other bank. The government concluded that Citigroup needed the IRS ruling because a reduction in the value of its tax breaks would have eroded its capital, forcing the company to raise more money, officials said. Federal tax law lets companies reduce taxable income in a good year by the amount of losses in bad years. But the law limits the transfer of those benefits to new ownership as a way of preventing profitable companies from buying losers to avoid taxes. Under the law, the government's sale of its 34 percent stake in Citigroup, combined with the company's recent sales of stock to raise money, qualified as a change in ownership. The IRS notice issued Friday saves Citigroup from the consequences by stipulating that the government's share sale does not count toward the definition of an ownership change." [view link] Changing a rule so that the U.S. maximizes the return on it's roughly 1/3 ownership of Citigroup sounds like a wise move to me. We'll see how it all works out eventually...
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "So what we did is cut a $750 billion dollar check" ...which is being paid back, with interest! "Horribly run, risk-embracing, banks, are allowed to fail." Hey, no one is saying that the financial mess that the USA got itself into, for a whole variety of reasons that went back at least a decade, was a good thing. You're simply forgetting what the consequences of allowing those financial institutions, which should have NEVER been allowed to get that big in the first place, to fail would have been. That's all that I'm saying... "Remember the end of the 'Are You a U.S. Taxpayer' thread?" I do indeed. "How Bernanke wants to eliminate banking reserve requirements?" Yea, and remember when I said that would be a an absolutely horrible idea? There are other countries (I think Canada is actually one of them) that technically don't have any limits on how small their bank's reserve requirements are though. There need to be some significant changes to the way our financial system works in the USA. Just about everyone is on board with that...except the financial institutions & their allies of course...lol... The U.S. House has already passed a whole slew of new rules, but they are being held up in the Senate...yet again...
  • SnakePlissken
    •
    14 years ago
    "The purpose of dancing, IMHO, is to be a fantasy, to be a desirous form, a delectable, interesting, intriguing individual. " Fetish dancer, that sounds a lot like the role of geisha, an artform I sadly will probably never have a chance to experience and appreciate.
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    Mr. G., here it is again (from one of the items I sent): "And still today, we see Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA taking over 90 percent of the entire U.S. market for mortgages ... while, at the same time, we see the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury providing 90 percent of the financing." If there was an error, I limited it to The Fed; as stated, Weiss identifies the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. We're putting it up for sale with one hand and buying it back with the other... 3rd world stuff. Also is mentioned in the link you provided ("Selling bonds and notes has the effect of pulling money back to the Fed.") "Nope. Your buddy the cultural anthropologist was wrong on that too. The GSEs controlled 90% of the U.S. market for mortgages...in 2003. Nothing has changed since way back then." ABSOLUTELY NOT! What changed was the BOOM in sub-prime mortgage origination and securitization. I know you know the GSEs were late to that party and then became the patsy. Now they're 90+% of the marketplace for every mortgage originated in a bubble bust, government-subsidized (tax breaks) environment. If the private market were healthy and present, they'd happily be participating for the chance to buy mortgages carrying a 5%+ rate of return for years to come. You're faulting his phd. At least he has one, and in an apt field for dealing with the miscreants on Wall St. There was more to the Wiki bio you sent, which you haven't given fair nod to. And as I said, I became a subscriber based upon his identification of the housing bubble and coming collapse. "What he's complaining about is a valid issue...that not *all* of the TARP money has been paid back, yet. However, the fact remains that many of the companies, for a whole variety of reasons, have, in fact, paid back their bailout money *with interest*. I've already said that the separate auto bailout money might not all come back. Don't get me started on AIG...lol..." I have my doubts, with Citigroup, previously mentioned above, a prime example. ""This 'spread' has not been passed onto the consumer." Why should it? The whole point in lending them the money was to get them to lend other people more money. That's how our financial system works as it relates to the Fed." You didn't really say that, did you? The Fed seeks to spur economic growth by cutting interest rates. Their member banks are then supposed to pass it along so the desired effect is achieved, only this time they haven't. Recall politicians being "angry" because "banks aren't lending"? They're not lending because 1) they have solvency issues 2) They won't do LTV deals reminescent of the bubble for obvious reasons, and 3) the public doesn't want to take on more debt. The result has been they've pocketed the spread difference and thus even lowly Citigroup could come out last March and say "Hey, guess what, we're profitable during the first two months!" ""A CD may well pay more, but typically the banks offering the highest rates are ones on the FDIC Watch List for takeover" Who says that??" Me. When banks are undercapitalized the FDIC puts them on a Problem Bank List. They're told to raise reserves or else. If they don't and their assets continue to deteriorate, the FDIC will take them over, typically on a Friday afternoon. So, how do problem banks raise deposits? They offer higher rates of return on products bought through them than a healthy bank will. "Changing a rule so that the U.S. maximizes the return on it's roughly 1/3 ownership of Citigroup sounds like a wise move to me. We'll see how it all works out eventually..." Are you sure you have that straight? ====================================================================== "...which is being paid back, with interest!" BUT, if the government had allowed the bad actors to fail, the $750 billion could've not just been used to insure people's deposits, but establish a new financial system, unencumbered by crappy paper nor irresponsible employees. AND, rather than stay in the banking business, the government could've then spun off the new system in a share offering. Think that wouldn't turn a profit??? As stands, we've rewarded bad behavior by allowing those who embraced greed and bad behavior to largely keep their jobs and positions. That's just asking for another problem to come yet again.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @george: interesting :) @the rest of you: Keep going! I like the talk of finances
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    double post, but I don't care: @SnakePlissen: Ah, a Geisha. Did you ever read Memoirs of a Geisha? I did when I was younger and I actually went through a phase where I practiced the various arts of pouring tea, sitting in a kimono, and so on, and so forth. Part of my self-taught theatre training :D
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "Mr. G., here it is again (from one of the items I sent): 'And still today, we see Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA taking over 90 percent of the entire U.S. market for mortgages ... while, at the same time, we see the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury providing 90 percent of the financing.' We've been over this before, your buddy the cultural anthropologist has his facts wrong, period. What he is doing is text book fear-mongering in a lame attempt to sell his line of thinking when it comes to personal finance. "We're putting it up for sale with one hand and buying it back with the other... 3rd world stuff." No, it really isn't. As I already explained to you, the purpose of the Fed buying U.S. Treasuries & govt. bonds was done simply to increase the money supply for lending, and it was, in fact, the first time that the Fed has done this since the 1950s & 1960s. The reason for this kind of an unusual move is because the Fed can do little with interest rates because of their mismanagement in the past. Inflation is still very low IMO. "ABSOLUTELY NOT! What changed was the BOOM in sub-prime mortgage origination and securitization" ...which had absolutely nothing to do with the GSEs, since sub-prime mortgages, by definition, did NOT meet their standards. What this hack is trying to do, again, is scare people into buying his line of thinking by telling a bunch of half-truths. I say again: The GSEs controlled 90% of the U.S. market for mortgages...in 2003. Nothing has changed since way back then. "Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market." This is from 2003: [view link] "You're faulting his phd." No, I'm not. I'm simply poitning out that he's, again, trying to pull a fast one by implying that he has a Ph.D. in finance (saying in other words, "trust me...I know what I am talking about"...and Appeal to Authority) when he doesn't have ANY degree in finance at all. That's dishonest, period. "There was more to the Wiki bio you sent, which you haven't given fair nod to." Yes, I did. I acknowledged that he moved to Japan, for only 2 years, on a Fulbright fellowship to study the Kabutocho, Tokyo's financial community. Two years experience in something does not make one an "expert" on anything. This guy's dad was a powerhouse in economics for sure, but he isn't though. That's an intentional dodge on his part. If you like what he has to say, then fine...but I'm not buying it at all. His fear-mongering arguments are pretty easy to take apart IMO. "I have my doubts, with Citigroup, previously mentioned above, a prime example." That's fine...I have little doubt at this point that the TARP money will be coming back at the federal govt. with interest. "You didn't really say that, did you?" Yes, I really did. LOL...and I also don't want to have to explain fractional-reserve banking on a strip club discussion board. Please don't make me... :) "The Fed seeks to spur economic growth by cutting interest rates" ...but it CAN'T do that right now, because our monetary policy was mismanaged under Greenspan. That's the whole point! "Me. When banks are undercapitalized the FDIC puts them on a Problem Bank List." LOL...you don't know which banks are on the Problem Bank List any more than I do. It's a confidential list! "Are you sure you have that straight?" Am I sure that it's going to work out in the U.S. government's favor when we sell our share of Citi? No, but we'll see when it happens. All I'm saying is that I don't have a problem with our govt. making moves which will maximize their return on the investment that they've made in Citi. It's in the long-term interest of we the taxpayers for them to do that IMO. "BUT, if the government had allowed the bad actors to fail, the $750 billion could've not just been used to insure people's deposits, but establish a new financial system, unencumbered by crappy paper nor irresponsible employees." Look, here's a very, very simple question. How much money do you think the federal govt. would have had to pay out (through it's obligations under FDIC) if the vast majority of U.S. banks went under at the end of 2008? A. $750 Billion B. less than $750 Billion C. more than $750 Billion I'm going with C. CT. Your line of thinking is overly simplistic pie-in-the-sky. The "bad actors" were, in fact, very bad, but they were, unfortunately, too big to fail. A new financial system is still very possible with reform, which is making its way through Congress, slowly unfortunately. "rather than stay in the banking business, the government could've then spun off the new system in a share offering." You're acting like the govt. actually *wants* to own shares in financial institutions, auto companies, insurance companies, etc.. It really doesn't. "Think that wouldn't turn a profit?" No, but they are in the process of doing just that through TARP. "That's just asking for another problem to come yet again" ...and that's why the financial system needs reform, now.
  • how
    •
    14 years ago
    MG said to CT, "You're acting like the govt. actually *wants* to own shares in financial institutions, auto companies, insurance companies, etc.. It really doesn't." This is a fascinating insight of which I was unaware. How did you come to this knowledge, MG?
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "This is a fascinating insight of which I was unaware. How did you come to this knowledge, MG?" LOL...still think that we're all communists eh "how"?? What a surprise wing-nut...run along now...
  • vincemichaels
    •
    14 years ago
    damn, this discussion got long fast, congrats fetish_dancer, you woke up the troops. Welcome to TUSCL
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    Thanks, VM!
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    14 years ago
    Hmmm, "interesting" she says. Sounds more like "oops, I shoulda kept quiet." :->
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    No, interesting as in I'd like to hear more about your experiences as a dom. :P
  • wallanon
    •
    14 years ago
    To the OP, from your experience what is a middle-end club?
  • Dougster
    •
    14 years ago
    MisterGay: what the fuck are you talking about here? The government is under no obligation to back FDIC insured deposits, only the FDIC is. Also the Fed is can, indeed, create money out of thin air. They set some numbers is a computer and presto! regular bank has some new money. All they need is some debt obligation from the regular bank in return. Just two glaring errors I saw in all the crap you posted, although I'm sure there are a ton more which I'm not even going to bother to comb through. You really shouldn't talk about things you know fuck all about. Oh wait, if you stuck to the rule you couldn't talk at all could you?
  • how
    •
    14 years ago
    So, based on MG's non-response, I gather that the "insight" was merely BS he made up, hoping some believe it. He is a leftist, and therefore an enemy of the United States. Shameful and horrific, MG is.
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    Aye, rather than repeat, onwards: ""I have my doubts, with Citigroup, previously mentioned above, a prime example." That's fine...I have little doubt at this point that the TARP money will be coming back at the federal govt. with interest." And here's how Citi's Tarp money is coming back (a TERRIBLE DEAL for the U.S. Taxpayer!): [view link] "Yes, I really did. LOL...and I also don't want to have to explain fractional-reserve banking on a strip club discussion board. Please don't make me... :)" And away you go, I guess! "...but it CAN'T do that right now, because our monetary policy was mismanaged under Greenspan. That's the whole point!" NO, it did, but it's member banks have been hoarding the differential, as I mentioned before. "LOL...you don't know which banks are on the Problem Bank List any more than I do. It's a confidential list!" LOL, talk about a dodge! You're switching the topic from problem banks to who's on the list. " All I'm saying is that I don't have a problem with our govt. making moves which will maximize their return on the investment that they've made in Citi. It's in the long-term interest of we the taxpayers for them to do that IMO." Sounds good, but again not the Citi tax dodge above! "The Treasury Department, via the IRS, has made a terrible deal with Citigroup for TARP repayment: They repay $20 billion in TARP money, and in exchange we give them keep $38 billion in tax abatements. WTF?" Citi repays $20 billion now so the government can claim TARP is doing well, while a much greater amount is given to Citi in trade off the backs of The U.S. Taxpayer in the future. Now THAT'S a screw job. "I'm going with C." Okay, explain how you arrive at over $750 billion. "but they were, unfortunately, too big to fail." Talk about too simplistic! The real work had yet to begin. Not to mention the cutting of the hob-nobby close relationships the heads of the big banks had cultivated with the pols over the years. We took the lazy man's way out, imo. "You're acting like the govt. actually *wants* to own shares in financial institutions, auto companies, insurance companies, etc.. It really doesn't." No, no, no! Don't know where that came from. Under my plan the government would incubate the new banks and then seek to leave by taking the companies public via ipo. With little debt, cumbersome crappy paper, robust deposit bases and new management, the banks would be prime for investment dollars via ipo. "No, but they are in the process of doing just that through TARP." Not if other companies are behaving as Citi is with regard to TARP repayments. Citi's behavior is VERY slimey. "...and that's why the financial system needs reform, now." No, it needs an exorcism. Read the Matt Taibbi piece I linked to under the blogs section. Embracing "too big to fail" is a green light for poor behavior.
  • arbeeguy
    •
    14 years ago
    Leftist = enemy of the United States? Where in the ***%%%*** did this come from? In order to have a right, you must have a left. They are both part of the same United States. Nixon built up a great list of "enemies" in the sixties. But he NEVER claimed they were enemies of the United States. Only that they were enemies of HIM and his cohorts. Enemies of the United States are people/organizations opposed to our constitution or our assets. Most (certainly not all) leftists work WITHIN the constitution. A few leftists (communists, Maoists) would like to forcibly redistribute our assets. My guess is they would constitute no more than 1% of the leftists. I am a rightist, and hang out with both rightists and leftists. I don't personally know a single leftist who wants to subvert the constitution of the US or forcibly redistribute the assets of the US.
  • Dougster
    •
    14 years ago
    abreeguy: how just enjoys being a mindless histrionic little bitch to try and get attention for being the most "hardcore" rightist.
  • how
    •
    14 years ago
    arbeeguy, you are correct that "enemies of the United States are people/organizations opposed to our constitution." And that describes leftists. Your guess that it is merely 1% of the left is wishful thinking. Did you not hear anything about what nearly 100% of elected democrats (a mainstream brand of "leftist") have been doing for the past few years?
  • how
    •
    14 years ago
    arbeeguy said, "I don't personally know a single leftist who wants to subvert the constitution of the US or forcibly redistribute the assets of the US." Sen Max Baucus said, "'Health reform' is an income shift. It is a shift, a leveling." Gov Howard Dean said, "This [health care bill] is a form of redistribution." Pres Barack Obama said, "We have to spread the wealth around." Great patriot Samuel Adams said, "The Utopian schemes of leveling are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." I suppose your statement can be seen as true, arbeeguy, in that you may not "personally know" the senator, governor, president, nor the scores of accomplices they have in their subversion of the constitution; however, that should be cold comfort.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "He is a leftist, and therefore an enemy of the United States. Shameful and horrific, MG is." Do us all a favor & go put you tinfoil conspiracy hat back on "how". The adults are trying to have a conversation, moron. ------------------------------------------------------ "And here's how Citi's Tarp money is coming back (a TERRIBLE DEAL for the U.S. Taxpayer!)" Dude, we've already been over this above. I'm really *not* going to repeat myself anymore. "And away you go, I guess!" LOL...nope, one can simply Google "fractional-reserve banking" if one wants to learn how it works. It's one of the main ways that the Fed directly influences how much money is in supply at any given time, and it's been going on for many decades now. Again, one may not like it, but that doesn't mean that it's "unusual" when the Fed uses it during a massive recession when many of it's other tools can't be utilized. "NO, it did, but it's member banks have been hoarding the differential, as I mentioned before." Ugh...these financial institutions *are* in business to make money CT, not to give out handouts. "You're switching the topic from problem banks to who's on the list." LOL...no, you're trying to make a completely bogus claim that YOU know who is on the confidential list & what practices those specific banks are undertaking, which you simply can't back up with any facts! "Sounds good, but again not the Citi tax dodge above" ...which, of course, we've been over before. The jury is certainly still out on how much money the govt. will make when it eventually sells it's roughly 1/3 of an interest in Citi. "Now THAT'S a screw job." You & your buddy Ritholtz simply don't know that yet, because again...the govt hasn't sold it's share of Citi yet, period end of story. We're going in circles here CT. "Okay, explain how you arrive at over $750 billion." Come on CT...the FDIC insured roughly 9000 banks at the end of 2008...with deposit amounts of over $7 Trillion! Over 200 banks have gone under since 2007, which has already cost the FDIC tens of billions of dollars. Sure, at least some of the money that goes to pay back depositors comes from the sale of the assets of any one bank (including trying to sell their previous business deals to other banks), but the FDIC doesn't make a profit on taking over banks very often, if ever. The FDIC has some U.S. Treasury securities on hand that it could cash in (meaning getting money from the federal govt. somehow), and it also has the ability to directly borrow up to $500 billion from the U.S. Treasury. And yes, the FDIC IS backed up "by the full faith and credit of the United States government". [view link] [view link] [view link] [view link] "We took the lazy man's way out, imo." No, we took the much cheaper way out, IMHO. "Under my plan the government would incubate the new banks and then seek to leave by taking the companies public via ipo." In this pipe-dream, you're forgetting exactly how much money it would cost to take over all those banks...see above. What's been done is DONE now. Crying over it makes no sense. "Not if other companies are behaving as Citi is with regard to TARP repayments" ...which you don't have any evidence of, and for which we've already discussed how you & your buddy Ritholtz are intentionally leaving out of the mix with respect to the govt. eventually selling it's shares in Citi & other institutions. "Embracing 'too big to fail' is a green light for poor behavior." I'm NOT embracing the concept of too big to fail! IMO, no institution should be allowed through regulations (or a lack thereof) to become too big to fail in the first place! That's part of what financial reform is all about! ------------------------------------- "Sen Max Baucus said, ''Health reform' is an income shift. It is a shift, a leveling.' Gov Howard Dean said, 'This [health care bill] is a form of redistribution.' Pres Barack Obama said, 'We have to spread the wealth around.'" Against the idea of progressive taxation eh?? Then take it up with Adam Smith & learn some history, moron.
  • how
    •
    14 years ago
    I am unwilling to pay for your ignorance. But you are irrelevant and worthless, so feel free to continue in your pitiful ways. Those who love America will defend her against the left, whatever it takes. Yes, leftists hate America. They will say, "I love America! I love America so much I want to fundamentally change the country." And they either won't realize the inherent idiocy of their statement, or they'll hope everyone else fails to realize it. No such luck.
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    Wow, politics already. I was raised conservatively but retain a few liberal viewpoints. Tell me, those of you who favour Obama, how do you feel about this healthcare reform, something he simply shoved through into law? OVER the will of the American majority, no less? I'd like to hear your answers.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "I am unwilling to pay for your ignorance." LOL...what a wing-nut you really are "how"...always with the same, tired old set of worn-out, debunked lines... ---------------------------------------------- "how do you feel about this healthcare reform, something he simply shoved through into law?" Nothing was "shoved into law". The vast majority of the bill in question was passed with a majority of the U.S. House & a super-majority of the U.S. Senate. That a few changes to that bill were passed later with majorities in both houses of Congress is irrelevant. That reconciliation process was used under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GWB, and Obama. "OVER the will of the American majority, no less?" Nonsense.
  • how
    •
    14 years ago
    Ignore MG. He is either the most evil liar in history, or simply too ignorant of the truth to be a functioning member of humanity. Hard to imagine evil like MG exhibits actually exists, but there it is for you to see...
  • fetish_dancer
    •
    14 years ago
    @how: I'm not going to ignore MG; I'm going to debate him. @MG: The reconciliation process was not previously used for anything else than budgetary changes. Not an overhaul of the entire healthcare system. Let's see: what else. Your president is a liar. Lied about bringing the troops home and ending the war. Lied about keeping unemployment below 8% - oh, geez, where the fuck are we now? 9.7%? Doesn't seem like 8% to me. Lied about closing GITMO. Lied about expanding the war. Lied about lobbyists. Pretends to be against banks and insurance companies, but has passed legislation propping them up and giving them tax breaks. Your president lies about pretty much everything with every breath he takes, and it's no surprise to me a moral jackoff wanting extras in a SC would vote for such a man. Do me a favour and keep fellating the progressives in the WH. It'll pay off for you, somehow. Douche.
  • vincemichaels
    •
    14 years ago
    LOL, that's the only comment I have tonight. It's funny to read how this discussion changed from the original, but what the heck.
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    "LOL...no, you're trying to make a completely bogus claim that YOU know who is on the confidential list & what practices those specific banks are undertaking, which you simply can't back up with any facts!" Go back and look. You were the one talking about who is on there; I was talking about how a bank gets on there (impaired) and what it does or can try to do to turn things around (pay above market rates to attrack deposits.) "Ugh...these financial institutions *are* in business to make money CT, not to give out handouts." Well, duh! In normal times the Fed will be at 2.75 and the member banks will be loaning to the public at 3% or 3.25%, NOT a spread of 5%! I'm surprised you don't know this. "In this pipe-dream, you're forgetting exactly how much money it would cost to take over all those banks...see above. What's been done is DONE now. Crying over it makes no sense." You take over the deposits, MG, not the credit default swaps, etc. Thereby lots if not most of the bad paper fulfills it's destiny and goes bad (whereas now it sits in limbo, untradeable, since the accounting rule change last year requiring mark-to-market.) John Q. Public's accounts are saved along with corporate accounts. Do you really think such would cost north of $750 billion? I believe it all could've been done for considerably less. And moral hazard wouldn't have been embraced. "...which you don't have any evidence of", o contrare! You keep forgetting about the 5% spread on loans the public is not benefitting from. It's how Citi was able to say they were profitable during the first two months last year just as the stock market was in a death spiral. Nothing quite like "pouring money on the banks" as Bernanke was up to!
  • mitciv
    •
    14 years ago
    Chickenhawk MisterFascist(aka MisterGay) thinks it's swell that Maobama sent more troops to be slaughtered in Afghanistan, and I have no doubt he would deploy troops to crush any seccessionist movement. BTW, you should know he has displayed pro-rape tendencies in previous threads. Law enforcement should be made aware of him imo.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "Hard to imagine evil like MG exhibits actually exists, but there it is for you to see" ...in your own warped dreams that is "how"...lol...ramble on wing-nut... ------------------------------------------------------ "The reconciliation process was not previously used for anything else than budgetary changes" ...which *both* the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act & the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 directly affect, specifically by modifying federal tax law. "Your president is a liar. Lied about bringing the troops home and ending the war." U.S. involvement in the Iraq War will be ending starting this year, when the vast majority of our troops will start to come home. Obama NEVER promised to end the Iraq War immediately. "Lied about keeping unemployment below 8%" Obama never pledged that he was going to "keep unemployment below 8%". His administration did underestimate how high unemployment was going to get as a result of the recession that started under GWB's watch. [view link] "Lied about closing GITMO." The Gitmo torture prison is still in the process of being closed. Locations are being developed for the eventual transport of the remaining Gitmo detainees to the USA for trial and/or detention. "Lied about expanding the war." Obama always said that more resources needed to be shifted to where the real conflict with our enemies in Al-Qaeda & the Taliban was...in Afghanistan. "Lied about lobbyists." Obama promised when he was running for President that his administration would: -"curb the influence of lobbyists and special interests" -"ban registered lobbyists or lobbying firms from giving gifts in any amount or any form to executive branch employees" -not allow "political appointees in an Obama administration to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years" -"prohibit former procurement officers from serving as lobbyists for a contractor under their purview for two years after leaving public service" -not allow any "political appointee to lobby the executive branch during the remainder of his administration" -"prohibit government officials from negotiating future employment with private businesses that are affected by their official actions" [view link] Obama *never* promised to ban lobbyists outright. "Pretends to be against banks and insurance companies, but has passed legislation propping them up and giving them tax breaks." We've been over & over this topic at length in this thread, which unfortunately has veered waaaaay off-topic, so I'm not going to repeat myself again. "it's no surprise to me a moral jackoff wanting extras in a SC would vote for such a man." Do us all a favor & keep your morals to yourself sweatheart. BTW, let me introduce you to our resident Right-wing sock puppet Internet Troll mitciv. He's upset because he used to get pwned at every turn in his wild, off-topic rants...lol...you can safely ignore him as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------ "You were the one talking about who is on there; I was talking about how a bank gets on there (impaired)" LOL...again, we're going round & round for no reason here CT. Your entire "thesis" is based on the total non-fact that you "know" who is on that confidential list. You don't know that at all, and you can't leap to make assumptions about which banks are doing what & for what reason without knowing who's on that confidential list! I'm *done* talking about this issue with you CT...believe whatever you want to & let the actual facts be damned... "In normal times the Fed will be at 2.75 and the member banks will be loaning to the public at 3% or 3.25%, NOT a spread of 5%! I'm surprised you don't know this." Ummmm...I'm *not* surprised that you don't have your facts straight, yet again, CT. The Fed's rates have varied from pretty close to 0% to as high as around 19-20% over the last 40 years or so. I'm really not against financial institutions making money (profit) on loans yanno. [view link] [view link] "You take over the deposits, MG, not the credit default swaps, etc." And, under your pipe-dream scheme (which again is just crying over milk that's already been split) you don't take into account at all how those so-called "toxic assets", which should have never been allowed to exist in the marketplace in the first place, would be taken off of an institution's balance sheet. "Do you really think such would cost north of $750 billion?" Yes, and I've already shown you numbers that prove that, period. "I believe it all could've been done for considerably less" ...but yet you can't prove it, because it isn't true. Again, believe whatever it is that you want to CT...it's a free country...we're *done* discussing this issue as well. "You keep forgetting about the 5% spread on loans the public is not benefitting from" ...and you keep conveniently forgetting about the govt. eventually selling it's shares in Citi & other institutions, which will likely be worth many, many billions of dollars BTW.
  • Dougster
    •
    14 years ago
    Sorry MisterGay, here's what you need to read: [view link] There is merely a "sense" that there is an "intent" for Congress to back the FDIC but there is no explicit legal binding. Please grab a fucking clue before you spread your misinformation here.
  • CTQWERTY
    •
    14 years ago
    Wow, Mr. G., THAT was a VERY underwhelming response. We go "round-and-round" because the original distortion was yours, and despite being told several times to "go back and check", you continue to wander even further. To that I cannot fix. Sad.
  • Dougster
    •
    14 years ago
    MisterGay is a "moral jackoff", huh? I like that one! ROFLMFAO
  • MisterGuy
    •
    14 years ago
    "We go 'round-and-round' because the original distortion was yours" No, it really wasn't CT. You were merely trying to pull a fast one by implying that you had inside knowledge of who was on the confidential bank listing and, therefore, could opine freely about what those specific banks were doing now...but you can't though. I think we're done here...
  • pocketrockets
    •
    13 years ago
    you must not be anyone's ATF. I love how every stripper I meet says they don't do extras ever, never will, never have thought it.
  • pocketrockets
    •
    13 years ago
    you must not have any regulars. I love how every stripper I meet says they don't do extras ever, never will, never have thought about it.
  • Doc_Holliday
    •
    13 years ago
    DIAF plz k thx
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion