Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[alok c]

Third-world residents are not the people who are eating meat, driving cars, using air-conditioning, and buying lots of manufactured and transported goods. They are not eating Peruvian asparagus in December, nor do they have the TV, the blow-dryer and ten lights on all at the same time. They do not take airplane flights.

 

It is the people in richer nations who are mainly burning fossil fuels and depleting the planet's resources. Read this article and take this test before you point the finger at others.

You are trying in vain.It is well neigh impossible to drill any sense to such bigot & troll.

[hrothgar]

 

1) When there are nations with many in poverty that are trying to industrialize, they will have more pressing needs than worrying about the planet; so if a country with more than three times our population continues to pollute and use oil and/or coal, how will our actions make a difference? Yes, I know they'll make a slight difference, but if we are headed to great devastation, how can we avoid it if other countries don't have the same agenda?

 

 

The United States is (by far) the largest per capita emitter of C02.

If you look at total C02 emissions over time, we are also the largest emitter.

If the United States is unwilling to cooperate in this process, other countries will refuse to do so.

 

Equally significant, having been the country that has overwhelmingly contributed to creating the problem, we have an obligation to contribute to the solution.

 

In addition, the United States is an extremely wealthy country.

The US is in a much better position to afford to develop mitigation technologies.

As these technologies are copied around the world, well all be much better off.

[hrothgar]

 

2) Let's say your answer to #1 is going to be very expensive (I don't believe any of my solutions aren't.) What are you going to give up to take care of the climate change problem? You have to either take care of it using more tax money (which the American people will revolt against) or by printing more money (which the American people should revolt against, at least those with any savings for retirement), or give up currently funded programs.

 

 

Revenue neutral carbon tax

Its the simplest and most direct way to address the problem

 

The burden will primarily fall on carbon intensive industries (both owners of capital and laborers)

[Kaitlyn S]

I did say I was done with you, but when you write such claptrap as claiming to have caught me in a contradiction, I admit I rise to the bait.

Allow one of the most tactless people on BBO to show you a more tactful way to say this.

 

Let's agree that it isn't much fun for either of us to discuss issues.

I say this because I really think you're trying to be tactful. There are some posters with which I wouldn't bother trying.

[Kaitlyn S]

The United States is (by far) the largest per capita emitter of C02.

If you look at total C02 emissions over time, we are also the largest emitter.

If the United States is unwilling to cooperate in this process, other countries will refuse to do so.

 

Equally significant, having been the country that has overwhelmingly contributed to creating the problem, we have an obligation to contribute to the solution.

 

In addition, the United States is an extremely wealthy country.

The US is in a much better position to afford to develop mitigation technologies.

As these technologies are copied around the world, well all be much better off.

I agree, and that was one of my ideas - to reward innovation. Rather than give subsidies to unproven entities like Solyndra, let the magic of Capitalism work by rewarding those innovators that come up with valuable solutions. You will see plenty of private R&D, well-funded startups dedicated to finding solutions which will attract some of the best minds.

 

By the way, I agree with you. This is one case where the theft of our intellectual property might pay off for us.

[Kaitlyn S]

Revenue neutral carbon tax

Its the simplest and most direct way to address the problem

 

The burden will primarily fall on carbon intensive industries (both owners of capital and laborers)

It sounds like what you are suggesting is cap & trade here in the US, and then when we develop technologies to develop energy cheaper and cleaner, let the rest of the world use the technology gratis.

 

It could work.

[Kaitlyn S]

You are trying in vain.It is well neigh impossible to drill any sense to such bigot & troll.

May I suggest a copy of "How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie 1936?

 

You are calling someone a bigot and a troll for pointing out the obvious fact that third-world people are going to get more developed? I thought it was uncool when I was mentioning something I thought was obvious but race was involved. This is really rough. I think he was only suggesting out that if climate change is a serious problem, it's going to get a lot more serious very quickly.

[hrothgar]

 

You are calling someone a bigot and a troll for pointing out the obvious fact that third-world people are going to get more developed?

 

Alternative explanation: Many of us have well more than a decade's experience with Jon and Al...

 

For example, many of us recall Al's original incarnation as a 9/11 truther...

Or his forays into anti semitism

Or any of the other ***** that he has pulled...

 

Jon also has some "history"

[mikeh]

It sounds like what you are suggesting is cap & trade here in the US, and then when we develop technologies to develop energy cheaper and cleaner, let the rest of the world use the technology gratis.

 

It could work.

You are being, not for the first time, obtuse.

 

I will start this post by referencing your assertion that you caught me in a contradiction in my posts re muffled climate scientists and suppressed health remedies. There was no contradiction, and I suspect that you only think there is because you failed to understand me.

 

I argued that it is silly to claim that there are many muffled climate scientists who would, if they could, demonstrate that human0caused climate change isn't real. There are wealthy, powerful interests who would be happy to spend hundreds of millions promoting such opinions. It is a fair inference, from the virtual absence of such opinions, that there are no muffled scientists.

 

As for quack therapies and treatments, once again there are wealthy people and companies who could run studies showing that their pet quackery was legitimate. Bear in mind that it would cost relatively little to do studies on supplements or reiki, etc, because these therapies are not required to meet FDA standards of review. Not for them the many years of animal then human study. No: all they need is one university professor with some grad students and a pool of volunteers. There are not even adverse side-effects to worry about with something like Reiki. Note that there are studies that show these therapies to be nonsense, so doing the study isn't the problem. So who is suppressing these studies, and why? How the heck are they doing it?

 

The fix is in at every university in the Western world? At every health related scientific journal?

 

When one makes claims one needs evidence if one is to be believed. The more extravagant the claim, the greater the evidentiary burden.

 

As for your two questions, you have a bunch of unstated assumptions buried therein, and those appear to be, at least, questionable.

 

The US has been slowly implementing some climate change measures. While you assertion that the US has met the Kyoto protocol targets was false, it is true to say that some progress has been made on some of the targets. The economy seems to have done fairly well despite that, and I know of no economist who says that the US economy has been noticeably and adversely affected.

 

The pace ought to pick up, altho the incoming regime is unlikely to do that, and seems likely to cause catastrophic harm to the entire planet. For example, the transition team has announced an intention to shut down NASA's global climate monitoring project: the single most productive method of measuring climate change in the world. While they say they will pass this on to another agency, that same agency is under near constant attack by republicans in Congress and in any event depends on assistance from the now-to-be-cancelled NASA program to access the satellite data that underpins all of these efforts.

 

It is essential to remember that developing new industries, such as clean energy, pollution abatement, and pollution control, means new jobs and new investments. Yes, coal miners face a dim future, but many others will find employment or business opportunities in the new industries. I doubt anyone can predict, with any confidence, the net effect, but your post seems to assume that there is no upside. This reminds me of the Trump (and to be fair, Sanders) arguments about free trade. It is easy to show that free trade deals cost entire industries money, and cause unemployment. However, most economists seem to agree that NAFTA, as one example, is a net benefit to the US economy. Similarly, lowering tariffs on China added to the already underway shrinking in the US textile business.....so losses are easy to identify.

 

As an aside, you might want to google to see whether the decline of coal in the US is due to pollution regulations or to the cheap abundance of natural gas. NG is cheaper to buy, easier to burn, and produces relatively little pollution compared to coal.

 

Meanwhile, all of those Americans involved in importing from China, including dock workers, transportation workers, wholesalers, and retailers make more money and have more job opportunities. Plus every consumer in the US can now buy clothing cheaper than they used to be able to do, and as such most people now have more disposable income. Neither Trump nor Sanders, nor Clinton, advance that argument because, while it is true, doing so would be spun by the other side as showing a lack of feeling for those who lost.

 

Another factor is that the extent to which increased operational or capital costs cause business failure, and resulting unemployment, is not a simple issue.

 

If all producers in a segment face similar increases in cost, and if the demand for the product has some resistance to price-induced change, then requiring all producers to spend to become green is unlikely to cause any direct loss. For example, it is unlikely that many people will go without necessary electricity if their utility bill goes up by 10%. Maybe the price-sensitive customers will stop leaving lights on in rooms when they leave the room. Maybe some will change their thermostat setting by a degree. Maybe some will install smart meters, or smart wiring (I know that most won't be able to afford this, but many will and virtually everyone can lower their electrical consumption with no discernible loss of quality of life).

 

Thus your unstated assumption that compliance with the steps needed to control global warming would be ruinous are, as with so many of your opinions, unsupported by facts. When one utters opinions with no apparent basis in reality, one should get used to others calling them nonsense.

 

 

As for your silly retort to Hrothgar, he didn't say or imply that the US would give away technology. I suspect that you know that one can buy a 4K 80 flatscreen television today, with built in internet connectivity, for a fraction of what one would have paid for a 37" old-fashioned CRT television 20 years ago?

 

My wife and I paid over 3,000 (admittedly in Canada where prices tend to be higher than in the US) for a top of the line Sony 37" television just when the 'new' 5 x 8 format was coming in. We looked at one: effectively equivalent to the Sony, it was 'on sale' for $8,000. That same size (of picture, the set itself is far smaller) is now often given away by furniture stores free if you buy a sofa set.

 

I paid over 3300 for an Apple II, with black and orange monitor, a thermal printer, and an external floopy drive in, iirc, 1978. My cellphone, with more data storage than existed in the world and more computing power than existed in the world when I took a computer science course in 1970, cost a small fraction of that, even ignoring the 500% inflation since 1970.

 

All of this is by way of saying that early adopters pay more for worse technology than those who wait for version 2 or 3 or....

 

So, if and when the US, or China, or Germany, work out how to build green technology effectively, the unit price will plummet, and the products can be sold at a fraction of the initial cost, while generating billions in profits.

 

Btw, in terms of the US and China, Hrothgar correctly points out that the US is by far the worst polluter in the world per capita. China is worse in absolute terms but has 4 times the population.

 

Third world overpopulation is an issue, but not remotely the same, in terms of climate change, as First World consumption. Most of the teeming billions 'enjoy' a subsistence standard of living, and hardly generate any carbon footprint.

 

There are obvious and real reasons to be concerned about overpopulation, but the US isn't exactly helping other countries to deal with it.

 

Under the Bush administration, much foreign aid was subject to the recipient country limiting its promotion of birth control!

 

That seems likely to resume with republican domination of your federal government.

 

Now add in the anti-muslim rhetoric of your incoming administration and ask yourself how influential the US will be, in terms of persuading hundreds of millions of poor muslims to accept guidance from the US. How much pull will the US have in the UN or in capitals around the world?

 

Oh well....as predicted, your 'very real questions' are indeed nonsense. You seem incapable of doubting any of your beliefs no matter how often you are exposed to evidence that ought to cause you to change your mind.

 

Btw, let me point out one factor that you seem to overlook. Your critics generally provide you with specific facts or rebuttals. Some, more deft than I, embed links to relevant sources. I don't. But I do provide you with the information needed to do simple google searches, and I assure you that in each such case I have done the search, so as to be sure that I am pointing you to a variety of sources. In contrast, other than early references to Jihad Watch, Hannity or Breitbart (lol), you never post references to facts or other evidence supporting your beliefs or contradicting statements of fact made by your critics.

 

Imagine that you were a stranger to this thread, and read it for the first time, and noted that pattern. One school of thought provided references and evidence and the other merely stated beliefs. What would you think? Be honest, with yourself at least, if not us.

[Kaitlyn S]

You are being, not for the first time, obtuse.

 

As for your silly retort to Hrothgar, he didn't say or imply that the US would give away technology. I suspect that you know that one can buy a 4K 80 flatscreen television today, with built in internet connectivity, for a fraction of what one would have paid for a 37" old-fashioned CRT television 20 years ago?

I am, as you are, exchanging ideas. My response to Hrothgar is only silly if the objective is to make a profit. If the highest objective is to greatly diminish man-made climate change, then rewarding innovators and then giving the technology away is not silly at all. It was pointed out that the USA can afford it more than anyone else, and are largely responsible for the problem, so it wouldn't even be that unfair to the US to develop the awesome technology and then just give it away. And if we are really concerned with climate control more than anything else, we should want everybody to get on board with the cleaner energy ASAP which means not only giving it away but training them to use it (including household systems which use the new energy source.) Of course, the company can sell the products overseas at slightly more than cost and make some money; but if we really want a clean earth and the foreign government is married to the idea of producing the new product themselves, just let them do it and tell them how. I know I'm breaking far afield of my capitalist ideology but if there is much agreement on this clean earth initiative, let's get it done as quickly as possible

 

This is different than TV sets where we aren't that anxious to get it used worldwide.

 

There is already partial precedent in the US subsidizing the rest of the world, and while we aren't giving drugs away, we are selling them much more cheaply to foreigners than Americans.

 

http://www.wsj.com/a...rugs-1448939481

 

I trust that the Wall Street Journal falls within your bounds for a credible source. And while I was pretty sure it was true, I did take your advice and look it up because one never knows.

[PassedOut]

That's bullsh*t.

 

When GWB was president, we were using the whole figure, like 10T.

Once BO has become president, we were using the debt/gdp ratio, like 110%.

 

You have to wait until next Jan to start using debt/year number again.

Actually, the federal fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30, so fiscal year 2016 is complete and fiscal year 2017 is almost two months in.

 

Also, comparisons using a percentage of gdp have been used for many years. Among other advantages, these comparisons remain meaningful even when the value of the dollar changes.

 

Here are two useful charts:

 

United States Government Debt to GDP 1940-2016

 

United States Federal Government Budget 1948-2016

 

You click MAX to show the full range of years.

 

The worst deficit was in fiscal year 2009, which started about four months before Obama took office.

[alok c]

May I suggest a copy of "How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie 1936?

 

You are calling someone a bigot and a troll for pointing out the obvious fact that third-world people are going to get more developed? I thought it was uncool when I was mentioning something I thought was obvious but race was involved. This is really rough. I think he was only suggesting out that if climate change is a serious problem, it's going to get a lot more serious very quickly.

Either you have not gone thru his posts carefully or you are being deliberately obtuse.To him all the world's maladies are synonymous with third world over population.If it is not bigotry & tolling, what it is?It is a typical behaviour of a zealot blaming others for their own ills.Also winning friend is important but more important is to call a spade a spade.

[Al_U_Card]

Mike, while I realize that you're being as nice as you can, it's really hard for you to hide your contempt or disdain. You want someone to discuss issues with that knows as much as you do. My interest in politics and issues is fairly recent, so I'm probably not that person. I realize that now. As we both are constantly learning, I will probably never be that person. Unfortunately, someone that might be that person already agrees with you on most points so the discussion isn't going to go very far. Al_U_Card and Jon certainly do not agree with you but I think you have even less desire to discuss things with them than you do with me.

Hi Kaitlyn. Welcome to the maelstrom... I must say that I enjoy your candor and authentic attitude. A refreshing change from what passes for discourse in this forum. I learn a lot from how other people see the world. Two perspectives are better than one. :)

As for my biases, WTC 7, inaccurate and untestable global climate models, and unscrupulous financial institutions pretty much sums up my lack of popularity 'round these parts... ;)

As for Jon, I particularly enjoyed his take-down of MikeH's arguments, whether I agree with either of their positions notwithstanding.

After a while, you may get used to the constant derision, baiting and intolerance but, for your sake, I hope not. Insecurity can create a lot of animosity and group-think only serves to reinforce the memes, themes and dreams of the close-minded.

[mikeh]

Hi Kaitlyn. Welcome to the maelstrom... I must say that I enjoy your candor and authentic attitude. A refreshing change from what passes for discourse in this forum. I learn a lot from how other people see the world. Two perspectives are better than one. :)

As for my biases, WTC 7, inaccurate and untestable global climate models, and unscrupulous financial institutions pretty much sums up my lack of popularity 'round these parts... ;)

As for Jon, I particularly enjoyed his take-down of MikeH's arguments, whether I agree with either of their positions notwithstanding.

After a while, you may get used to the constant derision, baiting and intolerance but, for your sake, I hope not. Insecurity can create a lot of animosity and group-think only serves to reinforce the memes, themes and dreams of the close-minded.

One can judge a man by his enemies as well as by his friends, so thank you :D

[Al_U_Card]

One can judge a man by his enemies as well as by his friends, so thank you :D

Feeling is mutual. ;)

p.s. (Representing District 1 in the NAOP B flight twice and winning an A flight Regional pairs event hardly qualifies me as an expert (back when I was playing competitively) but not being recognized as one doesn't change those facts.)

[Al_U_Card]

enemies

And there lies a goodly part of the problem. Pomposity and arrogance are not among my criteria for enmity so the mutual aspect of the thanks is more directed to the friend part. To consider those with different opinions and viewpoints as enemies speaks volumes. Perhaps a tad too much adversarial advocacy has taken its toll? I certainly am not your enemy.

[jonottawa]

And there lies a goodly part of the problem. Pomposity and arrogance are not among my criteria for enmity so the mutual aspect of the thanks is more directed to the friend part. To consider those with different opinions and viewpoints as enemies speaks volumes. Perhaps a tad too much adversarial advocacy has taken its toll? I certainly am not your enemy.

Happy Turkey Day!

 

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20161119_LDD001_0.jpg

 

Here are some good articles on anger management and displaced aggression that certain people might find helpful:

 

How To Stop Taking Out Your Anger On Others

 

20 Things to Do When You’re Feeling Angry with Someone

 

Learning Not to Lash Out

 

And here's a wonderful product that also might help:

 

 

"Fast pain relief from Internet arguments."

 

http://i.imgur.com/wbpd14m.jpg

[jonottawa]

Trump's had a bad week. Here are a few of the tweets I composed last night. I'm not sure which ones to send.

 

@realDonaldTrump gets mocked on SNL for backtracking on all his promises. He responds by backtracking on all his promises.

 

I didn't expect @realDonaldTrump to get tired of winning after only 2 weeks. He seems determined to lose now that he's won the election.

 

@realDonaldTrump we didn't elect a weathervane, we elected a leader to represent US. Stop dancing to the MSM's tune. YOU set the narrative.

 

I don't know what dirt they have on @realDonaldTrump to coerce him into caving on all the principles he ran on but it must be pretty juicy.

 

I wish @SenatorSessions or @AnnCoulter or @hannity would grab @realDonaldTrump by the p*ssy and shake some sense into him. MAN UP, Mr. President.

 

I don't enjoy chewing out America's last best hope. But when @realDonaldTrump caves on core principles, the backlash must be SWIFT & FEROCIOUS

 

If @realDonaldTrump learns that his supporters don't care if he caves on his campaign promises, do you think he'll stop doing it?

 

@realDonaldTrump YOU might have been lying when you said Hillary shouldn't be above the law, but WE weren't. #LockHerUp

 

@realDonaldTrump YOU might not think selling access & influence to foreign governments is wrong, but WE do. #LockHerUp

 

@realDonaldTrump YOU might think that there's one set of laws for the people & a different set for the elites, but we DON'T. #LockHerUp

 

@realDonaldTrump thinks he looks magnanimous & presidential by inviting traitors into his cabinet when he only looks weak & unprincipled.

 

@realDonaldTrump what did caving on Hillary or kowtowing to Bibi gain you? NOTHING. You just show that you can be ROLLED.

 

@realDonaldTrump thinks he can befriend his enemies. His enemies will show him how foolish he is. If you want a friend, get a DOG!

 

As pathetic a president as @georgewbush was, at least he didn't betray his strongest supporters before he even moved into the WH.

[cherdano]

Poor Jon! Can we all cry one round for him? He is sooo disappointed!

[jonottawa]

He's stumbling out of the gate. Listening to too many establishment Republicans, no doubt. Taking his supporters for granted in a hopelessly naive effort to court the other side. But we'll see. I'm always prepared for disappointment. Still SO SO SO SO relieved we're not looking at President Hillary.

 

If his gambit works and he unites America, I'll be stunned. Obama tried that (in a far more favorable media environment) and failed miserably.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUnv6Kb7syQ

 

Anyway, I'm doing my part to help him by criticizing him in here, forcing my fan club to either agree with me or support Trump. :P

[Winstonm]

 

Right now our national debt is almost $20T. (Try and tell me that's bullsh*t.) That's a few hundred thousand per taxpayer. Fortunately people are still lending our government money. If we start taking initiative on the climate change front, it will do no favors for our credit rating. We will only be able to fund climate change research and development as long as people are willing to support the US government. At some point, we might have to cough up that 20T because nobody will lend us money anymore. As a lawyer, you might be able to pay your share. Most of us can't pay our share. If you count unfunded Medicare and Social Security liabilities, the figure is much worse; a baby born today starts

 

I am curious - and I think it would help you understand your own position - to clarify why you consider the national debt a big problem and how (specifically) would that debt turn into a national security problem - and equally importantly, is it even plausible to think it could happen?

 

Allow me to point out a couple of bits of misdirection that you seem to have been swayed by First, I understand that $20T sounds like a lot of debt, and when you divide by U.S. citizen it comes up to a lot. But consider that U.S. debt is not nor will ever be required to be repaid in a lump sum in a single year. Our debts are accumulated debts that come due over the course of many years. Second, the debt will automatically decrease with an expansion of the economy. And third, the dollar is the world's reserve currency so it is in their national interest for foreign countries to own dollars via U.S. Treasury notes. Only by cutting off their own noses do countries refuse to buy U.S. debt.

 

In conclusion, the world is quite complicated and interlocking - someone who paints grim simplistic pictures of the world without explaining how these interdependencies are first nullified is someone who is selling a personal pet belief system and is not attempting to enlighten.

 

Self-education is much more difficult now than when I was younger - it takes a lot of digging to get to facts, it seems.

 

And one last comment which you raised to MikeH about the WSJ: the WSJ has had a good reputation but once it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch its reputation was tarnished - not because Murdoch is right wing but because he has a history with Fox of intervening from the top down to slant the information emanating from his stations to fit his personal political agenda. Almost immediately, the opinion page of the WSJ began to sound like Fox, so it is with trepidation one should watch for the same slant showing up within its non-opinion pages.

 

Murdoch also has controlling interest in the National Geographic Channel and others - my point simply being that it requires a lot of digging to stay on top of information and to determine what is fact and what is agenda-building faux news. It isn't easy.

[nige1]

I am curious - and I think it would help you understand your own position - to clarify why you consider the national debt a big problem and how (specifically) would that debt turn into a national security problem - and equally importantly, is it even plausible to think it could happen?

In spite of the profound insights, vouchsafed to us by WinstonM, The US and UK debt still worries me. It's a lot of money to pay back. We have to borrow money to pay the interest. Quantitative easing (printing money) isn't a sensible long-term solution. In the UK, successive governments have aggravated our condition by negotiating trillions of pounds worth of "off-the-books" "sweetheart" PFI (Private Finance Initiative) deals with cronies. IMO, we have bequeathed a horrendous liability to our children, especially when lenders begin to realize that the emperor can no longer afford any clothes.

[Winstonm]

In spite of the profound insights, vouchsafed to us by WinstonM, The US and UK debt still worries me. It's a lot of money to pay back. We have to borrow money to pay the interest. Quantitative easing (printing money) isn't a sensible long-term solution. In the UK, successive governments have aggravated our condition by negotiating trillions of pounds worth of "off-the-books" "sweetheart" PFI (Private Finance Initiative) deals with cronies. IMO, we have bequeathed a horrendous liability to our children, especially when lenders begin to realize that the emperor can no longer afford any clothes.

 

Again, I asked for specifics but writing, "when lenders begin to realize that the emperor can no longer afford any clothes" does not add anything specific to the discussion and indeed is simply a regurgitation of talking points.

 

Here is something better to work with. The Chinese government buys a large amount of U.S. Treasuries. Why do they do so, what is the benefit to them for doing so, and how does that contribute to a national security problem for the U.S.A.? Note, I'm not saying this arrangement is either good or bad - I am asking you - or Kaitlyn - to explain exactly what the Chinese (or other countries who buy the debt) would use that against us, the cost to them and us to do so - in other words, some specific reasons to fear the debt.

 

I am not saying the debt should not be reduced. It should be - at the proper time. What I am saying is that the national debt is not an immediate threat to national security and to think so is naive.

 

If you have valid information that undermines my position, I would like to hear it.

[nige1]

If you have valid information that undermines my position, I would like to hear it.

I've no inside-knowledge and I'm not clairvoyant but I hope WinstonMs intuitions and premonitions, based on available information, are more accurate than mine.

[Al_U_Card]

I have no inside-knowledge and I'm not clairvoyant but I hope WinstonMs intuitions and premonitions, based on available information, are better than mine.

Just about every crash, panic or depression was preceded by excessive debt and inverted debt/savings ratios. They, however, were only the pre-requisite. Once credit is restricted and/money supplies/circulation are reduced, hardship for most ensues. As we have seen in the past, only the financial institutions gain through repossessions or bankruptcy sale transactions. We never think that it could possibly happen to us...again....and again.