You're backpedaling and showing your ignorance.

Isn't it interesting that after all of those calculations, over half of all lease customers end up with a payment of $X99 / month. That's sure odd, isn't it.

Where is your source for this? Sure, the commercials quote -99/mo payments because it's good marketing. Altering the selling price and the cap cost reduction can make the numbers where you want them to be. But where do you get the idea that customers' payments end up being such? In fact, look at BMW's fine print for their 328i lease. The fine print even suggests that a "dealer contribution may affect terms," that is, the ad is already presuming a discount off the MSRP.

So where did you get your "over half" figure?

No, they start with the "value" of the car being full MSRP plus $800 for dealer rust spray and $400 floor mats.

So now you go from claiming the financial institution is ripping you off (which is false) to claiming the dealer is ripping you off - which you have the facts directly in front of you when you sign off on them. You're free to reject the rust spray and floor mats. So who's to blame for your mythical "lease ripoff?"

Could it be that the average American doesn't know what a good money factor is?

Most money factors are what they are, they aren't negotiable, and the institutions that let dealers mark up money factors have a cap to prevent fair lending lawsuits - typically 1 or 2 percent.

Maybe someone, somewhere, doesn't know how to compare a given mileage penalty to a straight purchase?

What does this even mean? Consumers don't know that they will have to pay more if they go over miles? The bank agreed to a purchase of a car in 3 years with X number of miles. If you return it with X+30,000 miles, you think they should have to honor the price?

Ever wondered why leasing companies, and only leasing companies, use ALG values, not NADA, KBB or anything else any US consumer would recognize?

NADA and KBB don't even offer residual percentages! They offer used vehicle values! Where do you get your information? And, by the way, KBB is balanced towards the dealer anyway. Ever wonder why most dealers can afford to sell their used cars at "BELOW KBB" prices?

ALG is the industry standard for lease rates. You're welcome to do the math on a 3 year old model's worth compared to what their current residuals are - many, MANY times you'll find that the captive banks (banks beholden to a manufacturer like Ford Motor Credit, BMW Financial Services, etc) inflate the residual in order to make leasing a better deal.

There is a reason most everyone in the auto industry leases their cars - they know the ins and outs of leasing, and they know it's a good deal. It's the misinformed "leasing is fleecing!" consumers that end up paying more in the long run, provided they have the buying habits of the majority of Americans - replacing their vehicle every 4-6 years.

That, plus the billion dollars per year FMC makes borrowing the $50K and leasing it to you.

You ever wondered why the auto companies push leases? Because they make a shitload of money on them, that's why.

You have no idea what you are talking about. There are no hidden numbers in a lease. You agree on the selling price of the car with your dealer, and your residual is pre-set at a rate you both agree to. If you don't like your bank's residual value, check out ALG's rates, what they are based upon - they are usually right about the same. Check what a 3 year old model is worth, and you'll find it about the same percentage off of what it was new.

Now, the only other variable (other than miles per year, which merely affects the residual) is money factor, what they are loaning you the money for. Also known as "interest." To get your interest rate, multiply the public money factor by 2400. My money factor of .00125 equates to 3% interest over the term of the loan. At that rate, it's probably subsidized by the bank!

Explain why banks get a "shitload" of money on leases. Explain how a driver pays 35-40% more, as you stated. They don't, and calculating a lease payment is simple math.

There is plenty of capacity in St Louis and room to build more.

The cost of the pipeline is much more than the cost of a refinery. The 'surplus capacity' claim is total nonsense. The tar sludge isn't anything like the crude that the existing refineries process. There would have to be major upgrades in any case. And building a two thousand mile pipeline costs a heck of a lot more than any refinery would.

The decision was made years ago: No pipeline.

Not announcing the decision stops the Koch bros and the Keystone corp from starting their appeal. Its like an administrative filibuster.

There is already a pipeline that runs to St Louis, the only reason to build the second pipeline is to sell the sludge to China. Having that option available will allow the price to be jacked up when the sludge is sold to the US market as it will fetch the international price which is a lot higher than the refiners currently pay in St Louis.

There is absolutely no reason for the US to OK a pipeline that will increase the cost of supply to the US market. The only reason the GOP backs the pipeline is that the Koch bros stand to make $100 billion from the increase in the value of their shale tar sands.

It is a purely tactical decision because nobody outside the GOP wants the pipeline built. Everyone who wants the pipeline will vote GOP in November whatever the decision. Obama could make a short term political gain by announcing that there will be no pipeline but that would allow the appeals to start. Better for the country to wait until there have been some GOP deaths on the SCOTUS.

Why, when analyzing the 2nd Amendment, do these so-called "scholars" mince commas and words explicitly in the text as written in the Constitution to derive the intent of the authors?

Why do they not read the Federalist papers, in which the founding fathers mention an individual right numerous times? (28, 29, 46, which I won't quote because you can find a much better summary here.)

Why do they not read the state constitutions written around the time, that reflect, in similar language, also an individual right?

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

See the entire timeline here.

Listen, I get it. Stevens wants to amend the Constitution to revoke the explicit ordained right to possess firearms. Why lie about it and claim that it was never intended for individual protection?

Sony Ericsson P800 - released in 2002

Full touch, full web, app store

http://www.thaimobilecenter.co...

It was IE8. You start off with IE6, even after slipstreaming. I think. I didn't bother testing. I could try another day. I already killed the VM.