• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"BAIL'EM OUT!!!" ????

Soapweed

Well-known member
BAIL'EM OUT!!! ????



Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now, we are trusting the economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry, and possibly our health care to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling whiskey?!"



What are we thinking? :???: :roll:
 

Silver

Well-known member
Geez Soap, with all due respect you've been on a bit of a roll posting misinformation lately :shock: :wink:

SUMMARY: Forwarded email casts doubt on the wisdom of taxpayer-funded industry bailouts by pointing out that in 1990 the U.S. government seized Nevada's Mustang Ranch brothel, tried to run the business, and failed.

Description: Email joke / Rumor
Circulating since: Oct. 2008
Status: False


Email example contributed by Delaney T., Dec. 16, 2008:

The Mustang Ranch and $750 billion bail-out

Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it.

They failed and it closed. Now, we are trusting the economy of our country and 850+ Billion Dollars to a pack of nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling booze.

Now if that don't make you nervous, what does???



Comments: Though the intent of this missive is humorous and it makes a worthy point — namely, mixing government and business can create more problems than it solves — it rests on a factual error. In reality, the federal government did not attempt to operate Mustang Ranch after it was seized in a bankruptcy proceeding in September 1990.

It's true that the feds had planned on keeping the business going until the brothel could be sold at auction (a scheme that became the butt of numerous jokes on late-night TV), but a U.S. judge refused to allow the bankruptcy trustee to assume the Ranch's business license. Instead, the IRS foreclosed on the property and auctioned it off a few months later.

Though various sources persist in claiming that the IRS itself ran the brothel in the interim, the available evidence suggests otherwise. Just two weeks after the government took possession of Mustang Ranch, county commissioners banned prostitution there, saying they were tired of the "circus" surrounding the case. The ban remained in place until the business reopened in December 1990 under "new" ownership (unbeknownst to officials at the time, the original owner, Joe Conforte, had repurchased the Ranch under an assumed name).

So, while it's accurate enough to say that the federal government "owned" Mustang Ranch for approximately three months in 1990, the claim that government officials tried to run the brothel and failed appears to be unfounded.


Email This Article

Sources and further reading:

U.S. Frustrated in Efforts to Run Mustang Ranch
San Jose Mercury News, 21 September 1990

There Won't Be an 'Uncle Sam's Brothel'
Associated Press, 22 September 1990

Mustang Ranch Forced to Turn Off the Red Light
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10 August 1999

Brothel Gets Red Light
Deseret News, 4 October 1990

Auctioned Bordello Back in Business
Associated Press, 19 December 1990

Mustang Ranch to Become Public Land Today
Nevada Appeal, 21 February 2003

Mustang Ranch Brothel Keeps Name
Associated Press, 16 December 2006

Last updated: 12/17/08
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
BAIL'EM OUT!!! ????



Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now, we are trusting the economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry, and possibly our health care to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling whiskey?!"



What are we thinking? :???: :roll:

Silver said:
Geez Soap, with all due respect you've been on a bit of a roll posting misinformation lately :shock: :wink:

SUMMARY: Forwarded email casts doubt on the wisdom of taxpayer-funded industry bailouts by pointing out that in 1990 the U.S. government seized Nevada's Mustang Ranch brothel, tried to run the business, and failed.

Description: Email joke / Rumor
Circulating since: Oct. 2008
Status: False


Email example contributed by Delaney T., Dec. 16, 2008:

The Mustang Ranch and $750 billion bail-out

Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it.

They failed and it closed. Now, we are trusting the economy of our country and 850+ Billion Dollars to a pack of nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling booze.

Now if that don't make you nervous, what does???



Comments: Though the intent of this missive is humorous and it makes a worthy point — namely, mixing government and business can create more problems than it solves — it rests on a factual error. In reality, the federal government did not attempt to operate Mustang Ranch after it was seized in a bankruptcy proceeding in September 1990.

It's true that the feds had planned on keeping the business going until the brothel could be sold at auction (a scheme that became the butt of numerous jokes on late-night TV), but a U.S. judge refused to allow the bankruptcy trustee to assume the Ranch's business license. Instead, the IRS foreclosed on the property and auctioned it off a few months later.

Though various sources persist in claiming that the IRS itself ran the brothel in the interim, the available evidence suggests otherwise. Just two weeks after the government took possession of Mustang Ranch, county commissioners banned prostitution there, saying they were tired of the "circus" surrounding the case. The ban remained in place until the business reopened in December 1990 under "new" ownership (unbeknownst to officials at the time, the original owner, Joe Conforte, had repurchased the Ranch under an assumed name).

So, while it's accurate enough to say that the federal government "owned" Mustang Ranch for approximately three months in 1990, the claim that government officials tried to run the brothel and failed appears to be unfounded.


Email This Article

Sources and further reading:

U.S. Frustrated in Efforts to Run Mustang Ranch
San Jose Mercury News, 21 September 1990

There Won't Be an 'Uncle Sam's Brothel'
Associated Press, 22 September 1990

Mustang Ranch Forced to Turn Off the Red Light
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10 August 1999

Brothel Gets Red Light
Deseret News, 4 October 1990

Auctioned Bordello Back in Business
Associated Press, 19 December 1990

Mustang Ranch to Become Public Land Today
Nevada Appeal, 21 February 2003

Mustang Ranch Brothel Keeps Name
Associated Press, 16 December 2006

Last updated: 12/17/08

"Just two weeks after the government took possession of Mustang Ranch, county commissioners banned prostitution there, saying they were tired of the "circus" surrounding the case."

I would say that the government did "try" to run the Mustang Ranch brothel, until the county commisioners banned prostitution there.

Did the government make money from "owning" the "ranch." No. Did the government lose money from owning the ranch. I'll bet the government lost plenty of money from their initial seizure of the place. Is it a stretch to say, "Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed."? Technically speaking, I don't think it is. :wink:

And as even your article states, "the intent of this missive is humorous and it makes a worthy point — namely, mixing government and business can create more problems than it solves."

I rest my case. :)
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I've got a college buddy that has worked at GMAC for over 20 years. He says that GM is in the biggest mess now that it's ever been. The adjective that he kept using to describe management now is "clusterf---". Everything is political and cars that should be rolling off the line now aren't scheduled until late Nov. Good people that are standing up and saying, "That won't work" are getting canned. He want's out, but he's got over 20 years in and doesn't want to throw that away. What a flipping mess........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
I've got a college buddy that has worked at GMAC for over 20 years. He says that GM is in the biggest mess now that it's ever been. The adjective that he kept using to describe management now is "clusterf---". Everything is political and cars that should be rolling off the line now aren't scheduled until late Nov. Good people that are standing up and saying, "That won't work" are getting canned. He want's out, but he's got over 20 years in and doesn't want to throw that away. What a flipping mess........

So tell me again how good they were doing before :???:

Going bankrupt doesn't sound like a well run company to me...Sounds more like they had a "clusterf---"... :wink:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
I've got a college buddy that has worked at GMAC for over 20 years. He says that GM is in the biggest mess now that it's ever been. The adjective that he kept using to describe management now is "clusterf---". Everything is political and cars that should be rolling off the line now aren't scheduled until late Nov. Good people that are standing up and saying, "That won't work" are getting canned. He want's out, but he's got over 20 years in and doesn't want to throw that away. What a flipping mess........

So tell me again how good they were doing before :???:

Going bankrupt doesn't sound like a well run company to me...Sounds more like they had a "clusterf---"... :wink:

Any business should have the freedom to either be a success or go broke. If the handwriting is on the wall that they are going broke, this ought to be allowed to happen. No one bailed out Studebaker or Nash when they were having financial troubles. The government has no business bailing out General Motors, and for darned sure Obama has no business firing their top executives. This duty should be something the stock-holders decide. When big businesses are allowed to fail, this gives room for smaller more efficient entities to take their place. Why subsidize a failing company to just prolong the agony and distort the eventual outcome.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
I've got a college buddy that has worked at GMAC for over 20 years. He says that GM is in the biggest mess now that it's ever been. The adjective that he kept using to describe management now is "clusterf---". Everything is political and cars that should be rolling off the line now aren't scheduled until late Nov. Good people that are standing up and saying, "That won't work" are getting canned. He want's out, but he's got over 20 years in and doesn't want to throw that away. What a flipping mess........

So tell me again how good they were doing before :???:

Going bankrupt doesn't sound like a well run company to me...Sounds more like they had a "clusterf---"... :wink:

Any business should have the freedom to either be a success or go broke. If the handwriting is on the wall that they are going broke, this ought to be allowed to happen. No one bailed out Studebaker or Nash when they were having financial troubles. The government has no business bailing out General Motors, and for darned sure Obama has no business firing their top executives. This duty should be something the stock-holders decide. When big businesses are allowed to fail, this gives room for smaller more efficient entities to take their place. Why subsidize a failing company to just prolong the agony and distort the eventual outcome.

Were you upset also with the 1980 bailout of Chrysler- and sticking in of Iacocca as head?
Which in 1983 paid back the entire $3.5 Billion plus made the US Treasury $350 million dollars richer....

While I agree that companies normally should be allowed to go broke- I also agree with the government that this was not the time to allow it to happen...The domino effect on the nation would have been catastrophic....This was not normal times- as the Bush Bust is a once in 100 years type of happening...
Even many of the economists and Republican consultants say it was a mistake that we were so asleep at the wheel and unprepared that we let Lehman Brothers go broke...

But the main underlying problem still exists- 30 years of nonenforcement of anti trust laws-- and allowing too many of multinational megacorps to get "too big to fail" without bringing down the entire countries/worlds economy....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I was in high school in 1980 when Chrysler was given their loans and I wasn't concerned. However, you can't compare then and now at all. Did the goverment fire anybody then? Did the goverment ignore laws and threaten bondholders who resisted the breaking of laws? Did the goverment take ownership and dole out ownership?

GM and Chrysler's problem wasnt' the Democrat Bust, it was the damn union sucking them dry. Other auto makers in the US are doing fine yet today. What is the difference between them and GM/Chrysler? NO UAW! It's not hard to figure out, OT.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
I was in high school in 1980 when Chrysler was given their loans and I wasn't concerned. However, you can't compare then and now at all. Did the goverment fire anybody then? Did the goverment ignore laws and threaten bondholders who resisted the breaking of laws? Did the goverment take ownership and dole out ownership?

GM and Chrysler's problem wasnt' the Democrat Bust, it was the damn union sucking them dry. Other auto makers in the US are doing fine yet today. What is the difference between them and GM/Chrysler? NO UAW! It's not hard to figure out, OT.

And the Auto Executives were forced at gun point to give those Unions all those benis over the years :???:

Thats been one of the problems with many companies over the years- giving out long term benefits instead of pay raises when times are good- that then catchs them by the short hairs when times get tough....

I'm not a great union fan- in fact in all the years of involvement with them-I've been on the other side--- but you have to have a labor movement to even out the playing field--or has been shown in the last few years of government backed corporate greed the working class falls backwards quickly...

Do you think that the fact in Japan and most of the corporate world- Executive pay averages 11 to 1 to the average worker--and in the US its now over 400 to 1-and rising rapidly while employee pay has stagnated or went backwards- that that may also have an effect....
 
Top