The real question to ask is: Why did the city every put more than the FDIC protected limit in one single financial institution? Any prudent community should know what all the risks to its funds are, including bank default, and plan accordingly. The real news here is that the city failed to do so long long ago, and that is a failure of everyone who runs that city. At the very least they should have realized over the past 2 years that they were in jeopardy after seeing multiple banks fail every week. Are these people living under a rock? If they can't even manage a bank account, why are they managing a city?

Revilo - I'm so glad you're good at french, because you seem to have difficulty with English. You should use the same definition of the word "lie" that every other educated English speaker does. For example, "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." All the respectable English dictionaries use a similar definition. What is the key to it being a lie? Intent to deceive, that's what. If someone simply says something that they think is correct but is not, it is not a lie. So no, it is not a lie no matter how you cut it. It is a lie if they knew otherwise when they made the statement. Period. As for our different guesses as to the impact forces, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know why you'd bring bulk modulus into it, as that refers to the frame's resistance to uniform compression when any compression here is clearly not uniform. What's more, why not consider shear modulus instead, since the frame appears to have torn at one or more points? I think you'd agree with me that it will be interesting for all of us to find out the speed of the cruiser and/or see the actual dash cam for ourselves.

This accident did not happen at an intersection, but farther on as the women were turning left into a parking lot.

Since when is it a regressive tax to try and make up part of the $150 million a year that taxpayers pay out just for Medicaid for tobacco-related issues? In my book we could cut all tobacco taxes and then ban state dollars from being used for anything that is directly related to or aggravated by tobacco use. If people want to use tobacco, that's fine with me. But I should not pay for their lifestyle choices. You make the choice and get your pleasure out of it, then you pay for it, not me.

Is it somehow a prerequisite to know a bunch of policies to have to know actual real life people who are on Medicaid but could afford their medical care if they didn't buy way more stuff than they need? Hmmm... how's that work? No, I don't know the guidelines and individual policies of those programs. But I do work with complicated financial instruments every single day, counsel people on their finances, and know very well that many people I see out there could adjust their lifestyle choices and simply choose not to because the government gives them "free stuff" and they like it. Are you going to stand there and say that you actually know that the vast majority aren't "taking advantage" of Medicaid? What percentage are we talking about? Where is that cited? What do you define as "taking advantage?" Do these people still spend money on things they could do without? Or do you just hear people's sad sob stories and assume that they say they can't pay so they must have exhausted all means? I'm not trying to be cynical, and I'm a giving person. And while I'm not rich by any means, I have enough for my needs. And how did I get here? Working 2 jobs while going to college, while still volunteering my time to the community and to those less fortunate. Was it hard? VERY! But I did it because I didn't want to be a burden on others. If I ever got to the point where I needed assistance to pay my bills in any case, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be cutting a lot of extras out of my life first. But there are far too many people who are more than happy to get a little help from the rest of us without making all that much of a sacrifice. I never said Medicaid only helps people who don't need it. But I did say that it does distribute a lot of money to people who I personally know who I think should cut their own expenses before coming to the taxpayers for a handout.

To be fair, he said that 150,000 apply, didn't specify how many of those were accepted. Then 70% of those (unsaid number) would attend. So really he didn't specify any size of school with the numbers he gave. Look at Harvard for example. It only accepted 8% of the students that applied, and of those, 76% attended. So, based on the current student population of just over 20,000 at Harvard, and assuming that the average student stays 4 years, and that there is a slightly larger class of freshmen than seniors due to drop out, let's just pretend that 6,000 of those 20,000 are freshmen. That means those 6,000 represent 76% of those accepted, making the number of accepted students about 7,900. And if those 7,900 are only 8% of those who applied, that means nearly 100,000 students applied for entrance. So really, that 150,000 number isn't outside the realm of possibility at all.