Who is next to get bailed out? Strip Clubs?
shadowcat
Atlanta suburb
From CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand and Mark Preston
Larry Flynt is asking for a bailout.
Larry Flynt is asking for a bailout.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Another major American industry is asking for assistance as the global financial crisis continues: Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis said Wednesday they will request that Congress allocate $5 billion for a bailout of the adult entertainment industry.
“The take here is that everyone and their mother want to be bailed out from the banks to the big three,†said Owen Moogan, spokesman for Larry Flynt. “The porn industry has been hurt by the downturn like everyone else and they are going to ask for the $5 billion. Is it the most serious thing in the world? Is it going to make the lives of Americans better if it happens? It is not for them to determine.â€
Francis said in a statement that “the US government should actively support the adult industry's survival and growth, just as it feels the need to support any other industry cherished by the American people."
“We should be delivering [the request] by the end of today to our congressmen and [Secretary of the Treasury Henry] Paulson asking for this $5 billion dollar bailout,†he told CNN Wednesday.
Flynt and Francis concede the industry itself is in no financial danger — DVD sales have slipped over the past year, but Web traffic has continued to grow.
But the industry leaders said the issue is a nation in need. "People are too depressed to be sexually active," Flynt said in the statement. "This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex."
"With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind. It's time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."
So far, there has been no congressional reaction to the request.
–CNN's Chloe Melas contributed to this report.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
31 comments
The producers are of one mind that they are to blame for their own problems. They shoot a lot of "Gonzo" nowadays. What that means is that they bring an actress and just shoot a sex scene. There isn't any plot or eroticism, just some gal getting screwed silly. They put out 1,500 of any title and for the past few years have been breaking even at best.
I had a long talk with a couple of producers on returning to 1980's format and shoot a movie with just one girl in different situations with a interconnected (although weak) plot. Although one producer felt that would cut down on costs and absolutely affirm first amendment protection, actresses and crews have short attention spans and serious continuity would be lost.
Thing is, today, because it is mainstream, porn is having trouble pleasing everyone, all the time. Some people who are regular customers want edgier stuff. Thing is, prosecutors are out to prosecute those who do edgier stuff. One longtime producer was just sentenced to ten years because he did highly degrading stuff (consensual) to actresses-including, making them consume body waste material (feces).
Porn is having an identity crisis and the industry is such that just about anyone can get into the act with not much capital (see the movie Zach and Miri Make A Porno-it's actually borderline factual). It would be healthy for the industry for some of the porn companies to fade away as the gonzo stuff is letting girls in the industry with little to no work ethic, who are difficult to work with when a producer actually wants to do something semi serious.
Actually, the only thing productive going on in the sex industry is that these gals (and some of them are lookers) are using the title "Porn Star" to pad their "resume", and asking more when they do escort, usually after they shoot a few scenes and can't find any other work. A run of the mill escort asks 300 an hour, but a porn star wants 1k or more.
I vote no on their bail out, but that's because I'd like to see better porn than what is being produced nowadays.
We must eliminate the entitlement mentality, and we must apply term limits to congress. Otherwise, we are headed towards socialism, and everyone will suffer for it. It is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with reality, and leads to authoritarian rule from central government.
Feel free to spend your government money on endless wars like the war on terror; I prefer to see my government money spent on homes, education, health care, food, and subsidizing stripclubs-- especially the price of lap dances. Universal Lap Stamps is the ticket to happier and saner society. :)
1. Subside 50% of the cost of every lap dance and VIP dance. Do this through creation of a Lapdance Commission that will issue vouchers. With subsidized lapdances, more people will be flocking to the cities and suburbs that are home to strip clubs. With this new spending power activated, the multiplier effect for businesses that are passed in-route to and from the clubs will naturally increase--another stimulus with positive tax consequences.
2. To implement the subsized lapdances, every household in the country will be entitled to at least one or or more lap dance vouchers, depending on the outcome of a census of households to determine each home's "horny factor." The higher the number, the more vouchers the household would qualify for. This census will be administered by the Commission. This, of course, will require the addition of hundreds of bureaucrats. I propose this workforce come from the ranks of retired and out of work srippers.
3. Subsidize the buffets offered at clubs. This will encourage more attendance and corresponding consumption of beverages to wash down the chow, thus increasing revenue from local sin taxes.
4. Offer tax breaks to women who attend strip clubs as patrons. Double the tax break if they dance on amateur might. Triple the tax break if they make a public display of lewdness or any similar act.
5. Offer free therapy to any right wing zealots who are offended by strip clubs. If the therapy doesn't work--deport them.
Now that would be real government in action. Change I could believe in.
If you loan a business money, and the business fails anyway, you lose your investment, but can you actually say a bailout occurred if the boat sinks anyway?
I wouldn't be so trusting when it comes to terms like LOANS or EQUITY INVESTMENTS. A beautiful example is the Social Security Trust Fund's "investments." What is this wonderful "investment"? Government IOUs. That's is correct the "investment" is a claim on government dollars. These dollars can either be obtained via taxes or much more likely printing money i.e. creating new money. See most people will blindly accept words as used and the clever dishonest people have no qualms about abusing the language for the own advantage.
And, YES it is still a bailout, imo, even if the business ultimately goes belly up. Too often the purpose of the bailout or program isn't as advertised. A beautiful example is the government's programs to supposedly save the family farms---its true purpose is to destroy the family farms. Any most family farmers bought the government BS hook, line, and sinker.
BTW, the problem of "investing" Social Security taxes for the benefit of future recipients was well understood when the program was initially started. If the government did attempt to invest the money in the stock market or other areas that are profit driven in fairly short order the government would be owning everything. I believe it was a very old New York Times article (that I read) that really explained the monumental problems of actually attempting to invest such huge amounts of money. The better solution is for the government to create money----that is a valuable service if done properly. To make the sound money cry babies happy? Create a "Trust Fund" so it appears to the very slow that Social Security is sitting on a sound stockpile of "investments." Err government debt---that will either mostly require taxes or creating money. You know what is silly? The government taxed the employer and employee and yet to redeem the alleged "investments" taxes or new money will be required! :) What a wonderful "investment" that requires taxes or money created out of thin air to get the money back.
Anyway, the "free" (non-insurance) collectivization of risk might actually improve the system greatly------the real problem seems to be more the collectivization of reward . . .
The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The
difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the
money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%.
Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays
nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say
our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises
to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.'"
by:
Thomas A. Edison
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog…
I have no doubt that the taxpayer will make money on each every one. Even in the case of GM, the company least likely to survive, the Treasury made sure they got first class liens as collateral.
In fact, I think part of the Treasury's problem (or it might have been Bushs's insistence), until just recently was being overly cautious that the taxpayer would get a good return on investment. This prevented them from by up the toxic MBS's as was the original plan. With the new administration and private funds (e.g. John Paulson and others) getting in on the act it looks like that will final happen.
As for the mindless right wingers who post here "absolutely no bailouts". These tools absolutely no idea how hard the economy would have collapsed without the bailouts. The great depression would have been a summer's picnic by comparison. But don't take my word for it. Go read the actual terms of the bailouts for yourself and make up your own mind. Assuming you are not so bound by ideology that you have any capacity left to think for yourself (doubtful in some cases here).
Look, if it was a good deal then investors from around the world would be lined up to participate in the orgy of profits. The Feds, first and foremost are frauds.
You're supposed to think for yourself. Note that this means not just assuming everything Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman or whomever came up with years ago in the midst of the cold war is gospel.
"Look, if it was a good deal then investors from around the world would be lined up to participate in the orgy of profits. "
Investors around the world were lined up for treasury bills. The US currency is way up. The banks have rebounded more than other sectors since the bailout. US markets are down less than foreign markets. Next global investor rush will be corporate bonds (all beginning). When the stimulus kicks in, the line up for US profits will intensify.
Ayn Rand believed strongly in hard currency. She might be right, however, I think the better system is an expanding fiat currency system. Milton Friedman stated that money has value because we think it has value. Reading his belief for the first time made me very disappointed. He is a highly intelligent and erudite man, imo, and yet he comes out with the sugar pill that money has value because we think it has value??? True, there is a large cattle class in the U.S. and world for that matter, but the simple simon view he spouts is destructive and anti-intellectual, imo. Money has value because the government demands dollars (which it already has in endless supply) from wage slaves and is more than willing to use terror to enforce its will. If I don't give the government the dollars it demands, then it will steal my home and may even put me in prison. The government has endless means to create demand for its dollars mainly involving violence, threats of violence, loss of "privileges," theft, and on and on. I knew a young man who attempted to survive never touching a Federal Reserve Note i.e. a U.S. Dollar. It was amazing the lengths he went to use only gold or silver. Of course, he was jailed numerous times. The government has fangs as well as molars and ain't bashful about using 'em.
Yes, I advised him that he was a nut for attempting to avoid any and all contact with U.S. Dollars. :)
Yet, these same investors weren't in line to invest in companies that had all these "assets" that could be pledged as collateral? :) Yeah, right. Take a closer look at the "assets" and a knowledgeable investor probably would run for the hills to bury his money in a safe hole-----that is why the government needed to ride to the rescue with hundreds of billions or is it thousands of billions . . . I listen to this nit wit government left and right and center and for the most part it is total sleaze.
There were two points (late oct and late nov) when the market came very close to collapsing altogether. Do you think there was such a panic because "smart investors" were worried that government bailouts would screw up the economy? No, it was because there were no bailouts in sight. The free market itself know that it's just an infant which will get into serious trouble if left on its own.
Because of the bailouts the market bounced back, and things didn't spiral out of control. It wasn't so much the money that came in. If you read the actual terms, the government got very good deals. It was more the sense that there was now some leadership, so that the market won't have to fend for itself, but rather have the government to keep an eye on it, making sure it didn't use the rope it had been given in the last decade to hang itself.
Anyone who follows the markets day to day now knows they get panicky when it looks like a bailout or other government intervention may not go through, and they get euphoric when there is word of a bailout or other help from the government.
The "smart investors" like socialism, hate the market being on its own.
Would you say John Paulson is a knowledgeable investor? He is getting in on buying MBS's now (just like the Treasury), which no one would touch before the bailouts. Even he knows the government made a good investment.
Why don't you describe what *you* think would have happened if the government had not intervened.
No need for any panic if the assets are there--they weren't which is why the panic and need for government "free" money. I see the home loan "assets" for the local banks---those "assets" are meager compared to the loan. No investors will jump into those endlessly losses except on terms that will destroy the economy. If the loan is for $200,000 the bankster would be lucky to get $100,000 from a real investor. Time for government to step in and agree to pay the whole ball of wax. Buy the $200,000 loan for $200,000 plus (this is a bailout or welfare or whatever) and it is secured by the "valuable asset." Hell, pretend the asset is worth $200 million---no one really gives much of a hoot except for some hot air. Gee, what a wonderful "investment" by the government-----and presto end of panic. Makes sense, but I wish the feds would LOAN me money like that or INVEST money with me like that. Hell, I'd even start waving the U.S. flag!
I think Obama explained it well: If your neighbor's house catches fire and it threatens your house as a consequence you don't just let his burn to ground, even if it was his own stupidity which caused the fire in the first place.
Believe me, from an ethical perspective I think the people reasonable for this mess (buyers and bankers alike) DESERVE to be standing in soup lines. Unfortunately that would affect everyone else so badly, that I support the bailouts.
In any case there are ways for investors to benefit from the recent troubles, so I'm not worried.
The government is the master and if the master says lose your savings or gamble on "overpriced" real estate, then the "overpriced" real estate is the play. Act like a dummy by not gambling on "overpriced" real estate and was your hard earn dollars get taken with outrageous rents and or rampant inflation.
Those who bought their overpriced houses? Haha! In debt to the government for life, unless they want to declare bankruptcy, in which case they're (rightfully) screwed for borrowing for future investments. They have no flexibility. They can prey for inflation (the Randroid/Friedmanian wet dream): but I predict stagnation and deflation are far more likely, getting them in even deeper.
What are talking about not trusting the US dollar? Why do you think it's doing so well lately? It is trusted. (Partly, ironically because we have huge gold reserve left over from pre-Nixon days.)
Yes, I agree "intuitively" the dollar ought to fall since we are ground zero in all this mess. However, people keep forgetting the rest of the world is even more screwed than we are, so it will continue to be a "safe haven".
I think the dollar is shit. Heck, I was looking at an ordinary red pepper at Walmart, which just a few years ago was expensive at 3 for a $1. Now, a single red pepper is a $1.77. The home prices despite all the foreclosures and general collapse are still expensive compared to where they were just a few years ago. And, the taxes! Thru the freaking roof. The whole policy changed from fair assessments to rape the taxpayer assessments. Lawyer fees? They ain't gone down nor have the court costs. Even the stinking computers are expensive---true it is a much more powerful machine but the total out of pocket costs seems frozen. Oh, I use to enjoy this wonderful steak sandwich at a local dive. Cost $6 (that was an inflated price---use to be under $3). New cost? $11. No more steak sandwiches for me and the shop will probably have to close.
Now compare to other countries, I think the dollar is still a better deal. I guess I need to check the currency markets.
12.07.08 19:57
http://capital.trendaz.com/?show=news&ne…
I did a little googling and the dollar doesn't seem to be so strong. Anyway, I see the local prices near and they only seem to go UP! Any BS from the government about deflation is pretty much BS until I start to see much lower prices on the items that I purchase.
Try looking at the longer term trends since the beginning of the crisis versus major currencies. Consider this month especially, as talk about the economic stimulus has heated up.
Six month from now, I hope the dollar is higher or treading water. President Bush on more than one occasion was cheerleading how wonderful a cheap dollar would be. Get the dollar cheap enough and the U.S. can start selling to Vietnam.
You really need to study the charts more and do your homework before you flap your trap here.
Quit being such a slacker: one bungled google search isn't going to cut it. Are you so religious in your beliefs that that's all it takes to convince you are right? Do you look at evidence that your beliefs are wrong? Doesn't seem like it to me.
"A rebound since the start of the start the crisis". Actually the dollar soared the most at the most intense points of the crisis. If you did your homework your would know this.
Anyway, do your homework, look at your religious (Randroidian/Friedmanian or whatever the fuck they are) beliefs critically then maybe we can talk.
So what? You're watching the day to day movements? The crisis was acknowledged when President Bush went from yapping about how wonderful and strong the U.S. economy was to basically stating it was a basket case. I believe McCain was asserting that those who complained about the economy were whiners and a week later he sees the reality also.
"long term trends since the beginning of the crisis"
Yep, that changes everything. There aren't any long term trends since that point, but rather blips. My guess is the long term trend will be a much weaker dollar, but I hope that I'm wrong.