Muscatine

Speaking of which.....I see that those two knuckleheads that showed up uninvited to a white house kegger didn't figure they needed to show up to testify before a congressional committee.  I smell another reality show. 

From an e-mail I got:

Subject: The Plan, The Scam, The Man...

...

Don’t feel bad if you did not get a chance to get in on the cash for clunkers deal....

The Plan, The Scam, The Man. Don't ya just love it when a plan comes together?

The Scam

Here is what a learned friend had to say about my Democratic Math e-mail.

It's even worse apparently than I first thought:


It's way worse than that. Ignore all the gas crap and just look at how the stupid car buyer got taken to the cleaners:

If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000.

However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.

So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making.

But wait; it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer.
For example, every dealer here in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies, including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started.

When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before. (Honda, Toyota and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did).

So let's do the final tally here:

You traded in a car worth: $3500
You got a discount of: $4500
---------
Net so far +$1000
But you have to pay: $1350 in taxes on the $4500
--------
Net so far: -$350
And you paid: $3000 more than the car was selling for the month before
----------
Net -$3350

We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan, but let's just stop here.

So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. And the poor, stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.

Obama and his band of merry men convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege.

Think this was stupid for those who were crazy enough to swallow this wonderful scheme? Just wait until we get health care with no additional costs over what most of us now pay for health insurance and the best medical care in the world. Think that scheme might be designed by the same people who came up with Cash for Clunkers?

SooooOO ..... how's that Obama thing working out for you?

Wow, hiroad. I have to admit, when I first saw this article I thought it looked pretty daunting. Then I did a Google search and found out where it came from: Pajamas Media. Nothing like using a partisan blog, eh hiroad. Guess you won't be raising a fit if I ever quote from the Daily Kos will you? Nonetheless, I thought I'd give it the old college try and see what I could find.

I have to ask, though, hiroad; did you really read the article? Did you follow the links? If you had then you would know that many of them are linked to nonexistent articles including many from the author, Jim Hoft's own partisan blog. In fact, six of the eight links that come before the "that was just in Missouri" statement terminate at a "not found" statement. The other two links are to an ultra-partisan anti-left site and the other is a youtube video. You better be careful, hiroad. mobaydave is gonna start getting irritated if you keep stealing his material.

Let's see what else we have in the rest of the article, shall we?

North Carolina - the link to the anti-ACLU site works, but the Hoft has mischaracterized the information.

Ohio - both links make reference to basically the same allegations by the same group of individuals and nothing more. One of the links is to a blatant anti-Obama site.

Nevada - This is the story about the Dallas Cowboys registrations. It includes the following quote which verifies what I have said already: "For the past 10 months, anytime ACORN has identified a potentially fraudulent application, we turn that application in to election officials separately and offer to provide election officials with the information they would need to pursue an investigation or prosecution of the individual."

Indiana - As I've pointed out before, this article deals with actions taken by ACORN employees and does not indicate any instructions by ACORN to act illegally.

Connecticut - The first link is to another "not found" message and the second link concerning a 7 year old girl includes the quote "The family told The Post a drug-addicted relative may have given the bogus card to ACORN."

Missouri - The second link is "not found" and the first link includes the regional director saying that "the group’s officials had singled out the suspect cards when all the registration cards were turned in, as required by law." As I've already said in a previous post.

Pennsylvania - The second link is "not found" and the first link goes to an article that clearly states that these are simply republican allegations.

Wisconsin - Again, a quote from the article: "ACORN officials say they review all the cards submitted by their workers and flag problematic ones for authorities." Just as I have said.

Florida - Neither link goes to an article about ACORN.

Texas - This link refers, again, to the actions of ACORN employees. Not the directives of ACORN.

Michigan - Wow, this is a link to a partisan blog that quotes abother partisan blog. Quality sources there.

New Mexico - More Pajamas Media! This link goes to a Michelle Malkin post that includes text from an article (that can no longer be found) that clearly explains how ACORN sets aside the registration cards they believe to be phony and turns them over to the authorities. Hmmmm... where have I heard that before?

All of these articles refer to wrongdoing by ACORN employees, not by ACORN itself.

Look, hiroad. I'm not denying that ACORN has some dishonest dumbasses working for them. But all along I've said that none of this implicates ACORN as the impetus behind the dishonesty. If they are, I hope they are held accountable, but thus far, they have not been found to be complicit in any of the actions described. That's been my point all along.

As for your second post, the first pdf link is to an affidavit for a search warrant (not an indication of guilt) and the second pdf comes back as "not found." Do you have a better link?

So...you don't like the links!   Whoopy!

Hey, the Cosa Nostra has a lot of unsavory employees working for it too.  Doesn't mean the organization itself is bad, right?  They do a lot of good for the neighborhood!

You judge a tree by its fruit.  No two ways about it.