Does President Obama Care About High Unemployment?

[shoedinidc]

Obama is the face in front of much bigger things that are going on, he most likely will serve a 2nd term but only because the powers that be allow it. Change lies within the people not the pres, if folks would get off their butts and take that job at mcdonalds too support the family the numbers wouldn't be so high. We've become to good for our own good and this will continue to be our downfall.

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by shoediniDC

Obama is the face in front of much bigger things that are going on, he most likely will serve a 2nd term but only because the powers that be allow it. Change lies within the people not the pres, if folks would get off their butts and take that job at mcdonalds too support the family the numbers wouldn't be so high. We've become to good for our own good and this will continue to be our downfall.

The world’s biggest restaurant chain reported that it received one million applicants for open positions, which resulted in 62,000 people gaining employment. Another 900,000 plus were turned down.



http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/One_Million_Apply_for_62000_Jobs__with_McDonalds_110506

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by shoediniDC

Obama is the face in front of much bigger things that are going on, he most likely will serve a 2nd term but only because the powers that be allow it. Change lies within the people not the pres, if folks would get off their butts and take that job at mcdonalds too support the family the numbers wouldn't be so high. We've become to good for our own good and this will continue to be our downfall.

The world’s biggest restaurant chain reported that it received one million applicants for open positions, which resulted in 62,000 people gaining employment. Another 900,000 plus were turned down.



http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/One_Million_Apply_for_62000_Jobs__with_McDonalds_110506

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by Deuce King

  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 

we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?

lol..... you must be trolling now.
A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?

Flight as a mans of local transportation is not feasible due to: current city structure, the speed necessary for lift, the technology associated with VTOL(vertical takeoff and landing), and the Aerospace industry.

You are blaming the automotive industry for not producing flying technology (however crazy it sounds) when the AEROSPACE industry should be the one you're mad at.-No I'm just saying them getting bailed out to keep on making the same level technology when we could be a lot further along with electric and fuel cell cars to electromagnetic cars and roads is what bothers me. These companies buy the patents for new kinds of designs, and use legal tactics to sue repress innovation. 

I guess you should get mad at the clothing industry next, for not making edible clothes that you can eat once they become out of style?-I guess you mad because you stay using this weak *** logic when debating somebody

You are a fool man. You ask me a question about examples of industries that I thought were being led to fail and some that were being propped up. I gave you examples of what I thought and why I thought it and then you have the nerve and try to ridicule me for trolling saying "A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?"

dude you're the only one trolling and always trolling. you always try way too hard to make somebody sound ridiculous. You are a master at rearranging people's words and rephrasing them based on your own inferences. We are paying more money for cars, and the quality and durability is not as long as they used to be. this is a fact. If you were old enough you would probably know but you seem to be kinda young acting the way you talk with me and other people that don't see eye to eye with you.  
Our country and cities were designed and planned with running off of the gas guzzling , rubber tire automobile for as long as possible. the highways system and to urban planning. If we progressed to new transportation technology, our cities would grow accordingly to how we would get around. To deny something because it doesn't fit in with the old way in this situation is enough for someone like me.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by Deuce King

  Exactly.  Alot of people don't wont use logic in their argument.  They want to use an agenda that has no support to it at all just to bash the other side. 

Are you serious??  The argument against the auto bailout or the auto industry in general is going to have to be more than just flying cars not being available for purchase right now. 

we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?

lol..... you must be trolling now.
A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?

Flight as a mans of local transportation is not feasible due to: current city structure, the speed necessary for lift, the technology associated with VTOL(vertical takeoff and landing), and the Aerospace industry.

You are blaming the automotive industry for not producing flying technology (however crazy it sounds) when the AEROSPACE industry should be the one you're mad at.-No I'm just saying them getting bailed out to keep on making the same level technology when we could be a lot further along with electric and fuel cell cars to electromagnetic cars and roads is what bothers me. These companies buy the patents for new kinds of designs, and use legal tactics to sue repress innovation. 

I guess you should get mad at the clothing industry next, for not making edible clothes that you can eat once they become out of style?-I guess you mad because you stay using this weak *** logic when debating somebody

You are a fool man. You ask me a question about examples of industries that I thought were being led to fail and some that were being propped up. I gave you examples of what I thought and why I thought it and then you have the nerve and try to ridicule me for trolling saying "A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?"

dude you're the only one trolling and always trolling. you always try way too hard to make somebody sound ridiculous. You are a master at rearranging people's words and rephrasing them based on your own inferences. We are paying more money for cars, and the quality and durability is not as long as they used to be. this is a fact. If you were old enough you would probably know but you seem to be kinda young acting the way you talk with me and other people that don't see eye to eye with you.  
Our country and cities were designed and planned with running off of the gas guzzling , rubber tire automobile for as long as possible. the highways system and to urban planning. If we progressed to new transportation technology, our cities would grow accordingly to how we would get around. To deny something because it doesn't fit in with the old way in this situation is enough for someone like me.

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Duece King-  If he really did care and he kept the auto worker jobs, why then did the administration force independent dealerships to close?  They have no direct relevance to the production of cars other than buying them directly from the manufacturers and providing service and loyalty to current and future buyers.

I am not aware of the administration "forcing" independent dealerships to close.  I will look into the matter now to see for myself, if there is an article or link you can provide that states this please do so as I would appreciate it. 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/19/gm-chrysler-dealership-closure-government-report/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/14/dealers-dont-buy-it/

Here are a couple articles for you relating to the dealership closings mandated by the Fed.

Also, by saving Chrysler & GM, they were still forced to lay off massive amounts of the auto workers that manufactured the cars.  Did it save some jobs?  Maybe.  Was it worth the price that the taxpayers ultimately paid for it?  I would argue not due to the economic price and from a moral hazard standpoint as well.

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Duece King-  If he really did care and he kept the auto worker jobs, why then did the administration force independent dealerships to close?  They have no direct relevance to the production of cars other than buying them directly from the manufacturers and providing service and loyalty to current and future buyers.

I am not aware of the administration "forcing" independent dealerships to close.  I will look into the matter now to see for myself, if there is an article or link you can provide that states this please do so as I would appreciate it. 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/19/gm-chrysler-dealership-closure-government-report/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/14/dealers-dont-buy-it/

Here are a couple articles for you relating to the dealership closings mandated by the Fed.

Also, by saving Chrysler & GM, they were still forced to lay off massive amounts of the auto workers that manufactured the cars.  Did it save some jobs?  Maybe.  Was it worth the price that the taxpayers ultimately paid for it?  I would argue not due to the economic price and from a moral hazard standpoint as well.

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?

lol..... you must be trolling now.
A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?

Flight as a mans of local transportation is not feasible due to: current city structure, the speed necessary for lift, the technology associated with VTOL(vertical takeoff and landing), and the Aerospace industry.

You are blaming the automotive industry for not producing flying technology (however crazy it sounds) when the AEROSPACE industry should be the one you're mad at.-No I'm just saying them getting bailed out to keep on making the same level technology when we could be a lot further along with electric and fuel cell cars to electromagnetic cars and roads is what bothers me. These companies buy the patents for new kinds of designs, and use legal tactics to sue repress innovation.So you want more patent/technology regulation and a reform of U.S. patent law? this sounds like a completely different topic than recession recovery.

I guess you should get mad at the clothing industry next, for not making edible clothes that you can eat once they become out of style?-I guess you mad because you stay using this weak *** logic when debating somebody clothing industry always impeding innovation.

You are a fool man. You ask me a question about examples of industries that I thought were being led to fail no you didnt' You did not name a single industry that was being led to fail. The automotive industry is in recovery. Name the industries this administration is leading to fail through it's policies. And which policies have led to this failure.

and some that were being propped up. I gave you examples of what I thought and why I thought it and then you have the nerve and try to ridicule me for trolling saying "A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?"

dude you're the only one trolling and always trolling. you always try way too hard to make somebody sound ridiculous. You are a master at rearranging people's words and rephrasing them based on your own inferences. No, I just point out what you say. If you don't like how you sound stop typing before you think.

We are paying more money for cars,ok and the quality and durability is not as long as they used to be. this is a fact.Source?

If you were old enough you would probably know but you seem to be kinda young acting the way you talk with me and other people that don't see eye to eye with you.  
Our country and cities were designed and planned with running off of the gas guzzling , rubber tire automobile for as long as possible. the highways system and to urban planning. If we progressed to new transportation technology, our cities would grow accordingly to how we would get around. To deny something because it doesn't fit in with the old way in this situation is enough for someone like me. I agree with this statement. But we are talking about shielding a population for an impending recession. It was not feasible to pump money into a restructuring of our cities that would take 4-6 years to plan, and then 10+ years to implement completely nationwide. The Bailout helped during the recession. It had its positives and negatives but I believe it was necessary. Had obama gone the route you propose, we would still be in the planning phase......

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

we have not made many innovations. we have in fact made our engines in cars more complicates with proprietary parts and designed functional obsolescence in order to allow auto industry to make money.  When these companies make profits, it because they make more money off of selling lower quality build car. Car quality has diminished as car prices have risen in an inverse relation. 
If cars like the jet engine cars that were more efficient with way less moving parts became a staple, what would stop people and companies from modding their cars with wings and experimenting with flight?

lol..... you must be trolling now.
A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?

Flight as a mans of local transportation is not feasible due to: current city structure, the speed necessary for lift, the technology associated with VTOL(vertical takeoff and landing), and the Aerospace industry.

You are blaming the automotive industry for not producing flying technology (however crazy it sounds) when the AEROSPACE industry should be the one you're mad at.-No I'm just saying them getting bailed out to keep on making the same level technology when we could be a lot further along with electric and fuel cell cars to electromagnetic cars and roads is what bothers me. These companies buy the patents for new kinds of designs, and use legal tactics to sue repress innovation.So you want more patent/technology regulation and a reform of U.S. patent law? this sounds like a completely different topic than recession recovery.

I guess you should get mad at the clothing industry next, for not making edible clothes that you can eat once they become out of style?-I guess you mad because you stay using this weak *** logic when debating somebody clothing industry always impeding innovation.

You are a fool man. You ask me a question about examples of industries that I thought were being led to fail no you didnt' You did not name a single industry that was being led to fail. The automotive industry is in recovery. Name the industries this administration is leading to fail through it's policies. And which policies have led to this failure.

and some that were being propped up. I gave you examples of what I thought and why I thought it and then you have the nerve and try to ridicule me for trolling saying "A debate about unemployment causes you to voice frustration that we don't have flying cars?"

dude you're the only one trolling and always trolling. you always try way too hard to make somebody sound ridiculous. You are a master at rearranging people's words and rephrasing them based on your own inferences. No, I just point out what you say. If you don't like how you sound stop typing before you think.

We are paying more money for cars,ok and the quality and durability is not as long as they used to be. this is a fact.Source?

If you were old enough you would probably know but you seem to be kinda young acting the way you talk with me and other people that don't see eye to eye with you.  
Our country and cities were designed and planned with running off of the gas guzzling , rubber tire automobile for as long as possible. the highways system and to urban planning. If we progressed to new transportation technology, our cities would grow accordingly to how we would get around. To deny something because it doesn't fit in with the old way in this situation is enough for someone like me. I agree with this statement. But we are talking about shielding a population for an impending recession. It was not feasible to pump money into a restructuring of our cities that would take 4-6 years to plan, and then 10+ years to implement completely nationwide. The Bailout helped during the recession. It had its positives and negatives but I believe it was necessary. Had obama gone the route you propose, we would still be in the planning phase......

 

[you go boy]

is it just white people that complain about obama?

 

[you go boy]

is it just white people that complain about obama?

 

[rashi]

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. you do know that scarce = rare right?....what are you trying to say with this sentence?

You think that the skills held by people at Chrysler at GM are scarce?

This has nothing to do with whether the bailout was a good decision or not. You are arguing over the skill level of worker and whether or not unions are good for the industry.

People in here are claiming it was a good idea, and you are claiming that industry needed to be saved. My question is why? Why did these people need to be saved when their skills are abundant?

 

[rashi]

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. you do know that scarce = rare right?....what are you trying to say with this sentence?

You think that the skills held by people at Chrysler at GM are scarce?

This has nothing to do with whether the bailout was a good decision or not. You are arguing over the skill level of worker and whether or not unions are good for the industry.

People in here are claiming it was a good idea, and you are claiming that industry needed to be saved. My question is why? Why did these people need to be saved when their skills are abundant?

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by rashi

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. you do know that scarce = rare right?....what are you trying to say with this sentence?

You think that the skills held by people at Chrysler at GM are scarce? I was asking what the poster meant by that sentence. The intent of his post was unclear. I made no statement about the skills of car workers.

This has nothing to do with whether the bailout was a good decision or not. You are arguing over the skill level of worker and whether or not unions are good for the industry.

People in here are claiming it was a good idea, and you are claiming that industry needed to be saved. My question is why? Why did these people need to be saved when their skills are abundant?

I am claiming that the recession would be much worse had the industry failed. The saving of the auto industry kept millions of americans from losing most if not all their income. The auto industry has recovered and is well on it's way to paying back the bailout loan (chrysler already has 6 years ahead of time).
You are saying these people didn't need to be saved because they are not skilled enough in your opinion.....I'm saying that regardless of the factory workers skill level, the auto industry is good to have. The auto industry includes more than just factory workers who build the cars. 

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by rashi

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. you do know that scarce = rare right?....what are you trying to say with this sentence?

You think that the skills held by people at Chrysler at GM are scarce? I was asking what the poster meant by that sentence. The intent of his post was unclear. I made no statement about the skills of car workers.

This has nothing to do with whether the bailout was a good decision or not. You are arguing over the skill level of worker and whether or not unions are good for the industry.

People in here are claiming it was a good idea, and you are claiming that industry needed to be saved. My question is why? Why did these people need to be saved when their skills are abundant?

I am claiming that the recession would be much worse had the industry failed. The saving of the auto industry kept millions of americans from losing most if not all their income. The auto industry has recovered and is well on it's way to paying back the bailout loan (chrysler already has 6 years ahead of time).
You are saying these people didn't need to be saved because they are not skilled enough in your opinion.....I'm saying that regardless of the factory workers skill level, the auto industry is good to have. The auto industry includes more than just factory workers who build the cars. 

 

[budweiser]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy


You are saying these people didn't need to be saved because they are not skilled enough in your opinion

  

 No he's not.

 

[budweiser]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy


You are saying these people didn't need to be saved because they are not skilled enough in your opinion

  

 No he's not.

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by rashi

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. you do know that scarce = rare right?....what are you trying to say with this sentence?

You think that the skills held by people at Chrysler at GM are scarce? I was asking what the poster meant by that sentence. The intent of his post was unclear. I made no statement about the skills of car workers.

This has nothing to do with whether the bailout was a good decision or not. You are arguing over the skill level of worker and whether or not unions are good for the industry.

People in here are claiming it was a good idea, and you are claiming that industry needed to be saved. My question is why? Why did these people need to be saved when their skills are abundant?

I am claiming that the recession would be much worse had the industry failed. The saving of the auto industry kept millions of americans from losing most if not all their income. The auto industry has recovered and is well on it's way to paying back the bailout loan (chrysler already has 6 years ahead of time).
You are saying these people didn't need to be saved because they are not skilled enough in your opinion.....I'm saying that regardless of the factory workers skill level, the auto industry is good to have. The auto industry includes more than just factory workers who build the cars. 

Lets not pretend like Chrysler has actually paid (or will ever pay) the total amount that the treasury gave them.  According to the US Treasury site itself (Here), the Treasury still retains a 6.6% stake in the company and Chrysler still owes $1.9B to the government.  On top of that, the $10B in bailouts, interest, and fees were just a refinance of that debt (Here).  On top of that, 69% of the company was given to the UAW. Fiat will eventually take over ownership of 49% of the Chrysler and Fiat isn't in the best financial position either, so we are still far from being out of the woods yet.

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by rashi

No they aren't. Skilled labor is a scarce resource, therefore the people that worked at these warehouses have terribly inflated wages that were Collectively Demanded by politically connected Labor Unions. you do know that scarce = rare right?....what are you trying to say with this sentence?

You think that the skills held by people at Chrysler at GM are scarce? I was asking what the poster meant by that sentence. The intent of his post was unclear. I made no statement about the skills of car workers.

This has nothing to do with whether the bailout was a good decision or not. You are arguing over the skill level of worker and whether or not unions are good for the industry.

People in here are claiming it was a good idea, and you are claiming that industry needed to be saved. My question is why? Why did these people need to be saved when their skills are abundant?

I am claiming that the recession would be much worse had the industry failed. The saving of the auto industry kept millions of americans from losing most if not all their income. The auto industry has recovered and is well on it's way to paying back the bailout loan (chrysler already has 6 years ahead of time).
You are saying these people didn't need to be saved because they are not skilled enough in your opinion.....I'm saying that regardless of the factory workers skill level, the auto industry is good to have. The auto industry includes more than just factory workers who build the cars. 

Lets not pretend like Chrysler has actually paid (or will ever pay) the total amount that the treasury gave them.  According to the US Treasury site itself (Here), the Treasury still retains a 6.6% stake in the company and Chrysler still owes $1.9B to the government.  On top of that, the $10B in bailouts, interest, and fees were just a refinance of that debt (Here).  On top of that, 69% of the company was given to the UAW. Fiat will eventually take over ownership of 49% of the Chrysler and Fiat isn't in the best financial position either, so we are still far from being out of the woods yet.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

I am claiming that the recession would be much worse had the industry failed. The saving of the auto industry kept millions of americans from losing most if not all their income. The auto industry has recovered and is well on it's way to paying back the bailout loan (chrysler already has 6 years ahead of time).
You are saying these people didn't need to be saved because they are not skilled enough in your opinion.....I'm saying that regardless of the factory workers skill level, the auto industry is good to have. The auto industry includes more than just factory workers who build the cars. 

Your claim is ridiculous, there isn't any type of empirical or quantitative analysis that could accurately claim that assumption. Economists think they can make these huge graphs with projections and think they can predict market moves. It can't, Capital is Heterogeneous, it is always moving regardless of a centralized entity i.e. the Federal Reserve manipulating the rules.

If anything, the Bailouts exacerbated the problem. The Bust is a natural market occurrence to offset the malinvestment (Boom). Bailing out is like giving a patient a cortisone injection for chronic pain, it doesn't cure the problem. It masks it temporarily.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

I am claiming that the recession would be much worse had the industry failed. The saving of the auto industry kept millions of americans from losing most if not all their income. The auto industry has recovered and is well on it's way to paying back the bailout loan (chrysler already has 6 years ahead of time).
You are saying these people didn't need to be saved because they are not skilled enough in your opinion.....I'm saying that regardless of the factory workers skill level, the auto industry is good to have. The auto industry includes more than just factory workers who build the cars. 

Your claim is ridiculous, there isn't any type of empirical or quantitative analysis that could accurately claim that assumption. Economists think they can make these huge graphs with projections and think they can predict market moves. It can't, Capital is Heterogeneous, it is always moving regardless of a centralized entity i.e. the Federal Reserve manipulating the rules.

If anything, the Bailouts exacerbated the problem. The Bust is a natural market occurrence to offset the malinvestment (Boom). Bailing out is like giving a patient a cortisone injection for chronic pain, it doesn't cure the problem. It masks it temporarily.

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Duece King-  If he really did care and he kept the auto worker jobs, why then did the administration force independent dealerships to close?  They have no direct relevance to the production of cars other than buying them directly from the manufacturers and providing service and loyalty to current and future buyers.

I am not aware of the administration "forcing" independent dealerships to close.  I will look into the matter now to see for myself, if there is an article or link you can provide that states this please do so as I would appreciate it. 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/19/gm-chrysler-dealership-closure-government-report/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/14/dealers-dont-buy-it/

Here are a couple articles for you relating to the dealership closings mandated by the Fed.

Also, by saving Chrysler & GM, they were still forced to lay off massive amounts of the auto workers that manufactured the cars.  Did it save some jobs?  Maybe.  Was it worth the price that the taxpayers ultimately paid for it?  I would argue not due to the economic price and from a moral hazard standpoint as well.




Thanks for posting these links.  I will read them and then follow up.

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Duece King-  If he really did care and he kept the auto worker jobs, why then did the administration force independent dealerships to close?  They have no direct relevance to the production of cars other than buying them directly from the manufacturers and providing service and loyalty to current and future buyers.

I am not aware of the administration "forcing" independent dealerships to close.  I will look into the matter now to see for myself, if there is an article or link you can provide that states this please do so as I would appreciate it. 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/19/gm-chrysler-dealership-closure-government-report/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/14/dealers-dont-buy-it/

Here are a couple articles for you relating to the dealership closings mandated by the Fed.

Also, by saving Chrysler & GM, they were still forced to lay off massive amounts of the auto workers that manufactured the cars.  Did it save some jobs?  Maybe.  Was it worth the price that the taxpayers ultimately paid for it?  I would argue not due to the economic price and from a moral hazard standpoint as well.




Thanks for posting these links.  I will read them and then follow up.