TLP: Harry Reid Says Nevada Should Outlaw Prostitution, Gets Bitchslapped by Whores
by ilene - February 23rd, 2011 8:40 pm
Courtesy of Jr. Deputy Accountant
Did you hear the one about the politician and the hookers? Turned out to not be so funny. Maybe that was because he was trying to f#*k the hookers and take their money at the same time.
AP via The Huffington Post:
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid took aim at the world’s oldest profession Tuesday, telling state lawmakers the time has come to have an adult conversation about Nevada’s legal sex trade if the state hopes to succeed in the 21st century.
The Democratic Senate majority leader made the comments before a joint session of the Legislature as brothel owners and lobbyists – and working girls from the rural establishments – looked on from the gallery.
In his autobiography, Reid, a Mormon, wrote about growing up in the mining hamlet of Searchlight, Nev., and learning to swim in the pool at a bordello. His mother took in laundry from the 13 brothels around town.
But when the nation thinks about Nevada, Reid said, "it should think about the world’s newest ideas and newest careers – not about its oldest profession."
He received a smattering of applause when he first suggested Nevada outlaw bordellos. By the time he finished with the topic, his remarks were met with silence from the representatives of a state whose identity is woven tightly with gambling, alcohol, quick marriages and prostitution.
What did he expect? His own mother made money washing the dirty laundry from whorehouses. Everybody wants to get paid, Harry. At least one hooker who listened to the speech wasn’t shy about raising her pimp hand to the honorable senator.
More AP:
Brooke Taylor, a prostitute at Bunny Ranch east of Carson City, called Reid’s speech "offensive" and said Reid should be proud of the way the state’s brothels regulate the sex industry.
"We’re the first ones to do it right," Taylor said.
Don’t think this hooker doesn’t know what she’s talking about. As JDA reported last spring from Battle Mountain, Nevada, there are businesses in the state that could learn a few things from prostitutes. For free.
 Email This Post
|
 Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
 del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
The Subprime Debacle: Act 2
by ilene - October 16th, 2010 6:00 pm
The Subprime Debacle: Act 2
Courtesy of John Mauldin at Thoughts From The Frontline
Trouble, oh we got trouble, Right here in River City!
With a capital "T" That rhymes with "P"
And that stands for Pool, That stands for pool.
We’ve surely got trouble!
Right here in River City,
Right here! Gotta figger out a way
To keep the young ones moral after school!
Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble…
- From The Music Man
(Quick last-minute note: I think this (and next week’s) is/will be one of the more important letters I have written in the last ten years. Take the time to read, and if you agree send it on to friends and responsible parties. And note to new readers: this letter goes to 1.5 million of my closest friends. It is free. Now, let’s jump in!)
There’s trouble, my friends, and it is does indeed involve pool(s), but not in the pool hall. The real monster is hidden in those pools of subprime debt that have not gone away. When I first began writing and speaking about the coming subprime disaster, it was in late 2007 and early 2008. The subject was being dismissed in most polite circles. "The subprime problem," testified Ben Bernanke, "will be contained."
My early take? It would be a disaster for investors. I admit I did not see in January that it would bring down Lehman and trigger the worst banking crisis in 80 years, less than 18 months later. But it was clear that it would not be "contained." We had no idea.
I also said that it was going to create a monster legal battle down the road that would take years to develop. Well, in the fullness of time, those years have come nigh upon us. Today we briefly look at the housing market, then the mortgage foreclosure debacle, and then we go into the real problem lurking in the background. It is The Subprime Debacle, Act 2. It is NOT the mortgage foreclosure issue, as serious as that is. I seriously doubt it will be contained, as well. Could the confluence of a bank credit crisis in the US and a sovereign debt banking crisis in Europe lead to another full-blown world banking crisis? The potential is there. This situation wants some serious attention.
This letter is going to print a little longer. But…
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
Foreclosuregate: Time to Break Up the Too-Big-to-Fail Banks?
by ilene - October 16th, 2010 2:22 am
Ellen Brown makes a compelling case for using the Kanjorski amendment to preemptively break up large financial institutions because they pose a threat to our economic stability. - Ilene
Foreclosuregate: Time to Break Up the Too-Big-to-Fail Banks?
With risky behavior by big finance again threatening economic stability, how can we get things right this time?
Courtesy of Ellen Brown
Originally published in YES! Magazine
Looming losses from the mortgage scandal dubbed “foreclosuregate” may qualify as the sort of systemic risk that, under the new financial reform bill, warrants the breakup of the too-big-to-fail banks. The Kanjorski amendment allows federal regulators to pre-emptively break up large financial institutions that—for any reason—pose a threat to U.S. financial or economic stability.
Although downplayed by most media accounts and popular financial analysts, crippling bank losses from foreclosure flaws appear to be imminent and unavoidable. The defects prompting the “RoboSigning Scandal” are not mere technicalities but are inherent to the securitization process. They cannot be cured. This deep-seated fraud is already explicitly outlined in publicly available lawsuits.
There is, however, no need to panic, no need for TARP II, and no need for legislation to further conceal the fraud and push the inevitable failure of the too-big-to-fail banks into the future.
Federal regulators now have the tools to take control and set things right. The Wall Street giants escaped the Volcker Rule, which would have limited their size, and the Brown-Kaufman amendment, which would have broken up the largest six banks outright; but the financial reform bill has us covered. The Kanjorski amendment—which slipped past lobbyists largely unnoticed—allows federal regulators to preemptively break up large financial institutions that pose a threat to U.S. financial or economic stability.
Rep. Grayson’s Call for a Moratorium
The new Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) probably didn’t expect to have its authority called on quite so soon, but Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has just put the amendment to the test. On October 7, in a letter addressed to Timothy Geithner, Shiela Bair, Ben Bernanke, Mary Schapiro, John Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), Gary Gensler, Ed DeMarco, and Debbie Matz (National Credit Union Administration), he asked for an emergency task force on foreclosure fraud. He said:
The liability here for the major banks is potentially enormous, and can lead
…
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
Healthcare Reform Sausage Not Fit For Consumption
by ilene - December 26th, 2009 8:20 pm
Healthcare Reform Sausage Not Fit For Consumption
Courtesy of Mish
As healthcare "reform" heads for passage, president Obama will soon have bragging rights for getting legislation passed that no one has before.
Although the Senate and House versions are different, the odds are something will pass. Moreover the odds are very high the final bill will resemble legislation passed by the Senate.
Senate House Clash
Please consider Senate Democrats Move Toward Clash With House on Health Measure
Senate Democrats, after securing a hard-fought Christmas Eve victory on health-care legislation, now move toward a battle over taxes and other issues with the U.S. House as lawmakers look to merge their differing bills.
The two chambers took different paths toward covering tens of millions of uninsured Americans. And when they begin reconciling their measures next month, they’re likely to clash over issues that include whether to set up a new government-run insurance program to restricting federal funds for abortion.
Finding agreement on financing the legislation “may be the toughest of all,” said Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat.
The House adopted a 5.4 percent income surtax on individuals earning more than $500,000 and couples earning over $1 million to pay for its $1.05 trillion bill. Senate Democrats would fund their $871 billion bill, which passed on a final vote of 60-39 yesterday, in part by placing a 40 percent excise tax on the costliest health-insurance policies. That provision is opposed by labor unions, which are among the party’s strongest backers.
Because it required all 58 Senate Democrats and two independents to stick together to get the 60 votes needed to secure passage of the chamber’s health-care bill, Thurber said it’s likely the Senate will win out on most issues. “The narrow majority in the Senate makes it almost a necessity to go with the Senate position,” Thurber said.
House negotiators “will have to capitulate on most main differences,” agreed Rogan Kersh, a public policy professor at New York University.
Drugmakers including Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based Merck & Co. have a number of fights on their hands. Lawmakers are pushing for the industry to spend more than the $80 billion that it promised to help patients in the Medicare program for the elderly afford prescription drugs.
Negotiating Power
The House measure calls for the government to capitalize on its buying power to
…
| Email This Post
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
Google+ |
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
Philip R. Davis is a founder Phil's Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders...
Ilene is editor and affiliate program
coordinator for PSW. She manages the Favorites backup site
(