Simple. Every time I renew with them, I tell them I won't pay that fee just for the privilege of being their customer. Then I refer them to how long I have been a customer of theirs. End of discussion.
I don't know of a study that will back me up here, but I am convinced that we have so many fat kids and fat young adults because they spend so much time playing video games.
I do have anecdotal evidence, though, from an Army Colonel that I met a couple of years ago who was responsible for recruiting. He told me that they have a really hard time getting new recruits up to physical standards, much harder than it used to be. He said, as nicely as possible, that new recruits lack the physical and mental toughness that come from having engaged in athletics or hard physical labor.
And, our academic abilities are clearly suffering since video games got so big.
On the whole, I see them as a big negative. I used to live in a neighborhood full of kids, and the little ones (under 10, I guess) were frequently outside playing. But not many over the age of 10.
It wouldn't. Trust me, if I were a stripper, I would be a broke stripper.
I do this with $1 bills. At the end of the day, all the ones that I have accumulated go into a jar. Amazing how fast it all adds up. Bought a new laptop this way not so long ago.
Reply to promote secured credit cards.
Also, you used to be able to go to a bank and borrow $1000 just on your signature. Borrow the money, stick it in a savings account at the same bank and pay it off over 6 months. Not sure if this is possible any more, but it is how it was done back before credit cards.
Alternatively, buy a $1000 CD then borrow $1000 against the CD and repay over a 6 month period.
Not free, but cheap.
See, here's the problem: "So if we know that the government is funded by perpetual contributions (taxes) from citizens and corporations..."
It's not. It's funded by all of that plus about 46 cents on the dollar that we are borrowing. That our children and grandchildren will have to repay.
If we should all have to chip in to get our house in order (and I whole-heartedly agree with that statement), then we need to get the lower 50% of our population more productive so that they can begin to pay taxes rather than being net users of government services.
FWIW, I think it's bad that anybody in this country pays more than about 15-20% in taxes. I would like to see the tax rates dropped into that range and then spread out over a greater tax base, preferably with some type of flat tax scheme. More people paying at a lower rate would raise far more money than just taking a hunk out of the Romney's of the world for, you must admit, punitive reasons. Because that's what this is, it's Obama and the left taking aim on people for no other reason than that they have done well for themselves. It is a despicable philosophy that sees the use of government force to take from one to give to another as a reasonable thing to do.
OK, first, it wasn't an analogy at all. It was a statement. And I didn't say anything about the Forbes 400 running the government. I said that if you took their money, you could only run it for a few months. For more specifics, watch this: [www.youtube.com]
"Obscenely rich" could probably be defined as "anyone who has more stuff than I do". Which seems to be the operating principle these days, particularly among the Occupy crowd.
Hey, speaking of those poor Occupiers, have you seen this? [bigjournalism.com]
You people crack me up. Every one of you on the left thinks it's ok to require compliance with whatever your hare-brained scheme of the moment is. War on poverty, environmentalism, OWS and so on.
Sorry, I'm starting my own religion, the religion of FOism. You can choose to take part or not, it requires nothing of you other than that you FO.
Sorry, you don't get to decide what someone else gets to do with their own money nor what their preferred charities are.
He paid 13.9% tax rate and donated roughly the same percentage to charity. All told, about $7M to taxes and charity. Does that make him 15% less shitty?
Wish I could stroke a check for $3.5M to charity. Pretty evil of him, don't you think?
If you took all the money, not just the income, all the money that the Forbes 400 have, you could run the federal government for just a few months. It's not enough to build all the schools and infrastructure that we need. And they would no longer be "obscenely rich", whatever that is.
So here's what I do. I give files a primary name followed by a specific name, like so: FINANCESJan2012BankStmt.
Then just search on FINANCES* and I get all files labeled that way. Then I just scroll through to find what I need. No folder, no Belvedere or anything else, although I do make sure to save documents in a document folder, etc.
Google Desktop used to do a fine job of managing this, but it's been discontinued.
Reply to promote. Why the thumbs don't work, LH?
Nice!
It's called "comparative advantage": [en.wikipedia.org]
You want their prices to come down? Stop buying their products.
Disagree on the Kiwi polish. Use a creme polish instead, it keeps the leather soft and pliant. Excellent article here: [www.askandyaboutclothes.com]
Also, shoe trees. Try not to wear the same pair two days in a row, if you can.
How to Cook Everything by Bittman: [www.amazon.com]
Great book, breaks it all down and makes it simple.
Ugh. Time for a new way to secure your online accounts. This password thing ain't working.
Reply to promote. Sad, but true. The whole loyalty/proper way of doing things is pretty much dead. Still, for good form's sake not a bad idea to offer notice and as someone above said, ask to be released immediately. "Here's my 2 weeks, but if you don't mind I'd rather stop now."
