Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
It was a nice idea. Today the unemployment rate is hovering above 9 percent—better than it would have been without the stimulus, most experts agree, but still painfully high. Why didn’t we get more for our money?
While liberals and conservatives alike blame the stimulus itself—It wasn’t big enough! It was never going to work!—the problem may have more to do with how the money was spent. It’s not enough just to inject money into infrastructure, because not all transportation funding is created equal—or at least, it doesn’t create jobs at an equal rate. As any infrastructure policy wonk can tell you, money spent on fixing up existing systems or building mass transit delivers more jobs, and faster, than building new highways. With their wallets bulging with their federal allowance, the states were allowed to spend $26.6 billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money however they saw fit.
A new study shows that most states didn’t end up making the most of the windfall. The report by the transportation research group Smart Growth America found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges. The result of the indiscriminate spending? States missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs—and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbling. Meanwhile, the states that did put dollars toward public transportation were richly rewarded: Each dollar used on transit was 75 percent more effective at putting people to work than a dollar used for highway work.
The government meant to get the biggest bang for its buck, with “shovel-ready projects.” But building miles of new roads requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Mandel Ngan / Getty Images
The government, of course, meant to get the biggest bang for its buck. The stimulus bill forced states to spend their allocated cash quickly, which was intended to get them to fund maintenance needs—“shovel-ready projects”—that had already been identified. Building miles of new roads, on the other hand, requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Some states did that. Sue Minter, Vermont’s deputy transportation secretary, says a longstanding “fix-it-first” policy for infrastructure and bipartisan collaboration shaped Vermont’s decisions about how to use the funds. The state spent all of its highway money on system maintenance, with a small amount going to mass transit. (Minter, a Democrat, was a member of the state legislature at the time.) “This shot of money into our economy was very, very significant. It’s part of the reason we have a relatively low unemployment rate,” she says. Only 5.8 percent of Vermont residents are out of work, one of the nation’s lowest rates. State research shows that ARRA funding employed 11,000 people—a small number overall, but a significant one in a small state. Minter says the maintenance was important for keeping economic growth, particularly in tourism, strong.
Other states, however, took a different tack. Arkansas used 81 percent of its money for new projects and none on transit; it also has a higher unemployment rate than Vermont. And unlike other states near the bottom of the list, just 38 percent of its roads are in good condition, according to a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade organization.
benchcraft company portland or
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
benchcraft company portland or
Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
It was a nice idea. Today the unemployment rate is hovering above 9 percent—better than it would have been without the stimulus, most experts agree, but still painfully high. Why didn’t we get more for our money?
While liberals and conservatives alike blame the stimulus itself—It wasn’t big enough! It was never going to work!—the problem may have more to do with how the money was spent. It’s not enough just to inject money into infrastructure, because not all transportation funding is created equal—or at least, it doesn’t create jobs at an equal rate. As any infrastructure policy wonk can tell you, money spent on fixing up existing systems or building mass transit delivers more jobs, and faster, than building new highways. With their wallets bulging with their federal allowance, the states were allowed to spend $26.6 billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money however they saw fit.
A new study shows that most states didn’t end up making the most of the windfall. The report by the transportation research group Smart Growth America found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges. The result of the indiscriminate spending? States missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs—and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbling. Meanwhile, the states that did put dollars toward public transportation were richly rewarded: Each dollar used on transit was 75 percent more effective at putting people to work than a dollar used for highway work.
The government meant to get the biggest bang for its buck, with “shovel-ready projects.” But building miles of new roads requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Mandel Ngan / Getty Images
The government, of course, meant to get the biggest bang for its buck. The stimulus bill forced states to spend their allocated cash quickly, which was intended to get them to fund maintenance needs—“shovel-ready projects”—that had already been identified. Building miles of new roads, on the other hand, requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Some states did that. Sue Minter, Vermont’s deputy transportation secretary, says a longstanding “fix-it-first” policy for infrastructure and bipartisan collaboration shaped Vermont’s decisions about how to use the funds. The state spent all of its highway money on system maintenance, with a small amount going to mass transit. (Minter, a Democrat, was a member of the state legislature at the time.) “This shot of money into our economy was very, very significant. It’s part of the reason we have a relatively low unemployment rate,” she says. Only 5.8 percent of Vermont residents are out of work, one of the nation’s lowest rates. State research shows that ARRA funding employed 11,000 people—a small number overall, but a significant one in a small state. Minter says the maintenance was important for keeping economic growth, particularly in tourism, strong.
Other states, however, took a different tack. Arkansas used 81 percent of its money for new projects and none on transit; it also has a higher unemployment rate than Vermont. And unlike other states near the bottom of the list, just 38 percent of its roads are in good condition, according to a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade organization.
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
benchcraft company portland or
[reefeed]
benchcraft company portland or
benchcraft company scam
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
benchcraft company portland or
Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
It was a nice idea. Today the unemployment rate is hovering above 9 percent—better than it would have been without the stimulus, most experts agree, but still painfully high. Why didn’t we get more for our money?
While liberals and conservatives alike blame the stimulus itself—It wasn’t big enough! It was never going to work!—the problem may have more to do with how the money was spent. It’s not enough just to inject money into infrastructure, because not all transportation funding is created equal—or at least, it doesn’t create jobs at an equal rate. As any infrastructure policy wonk can tell you, money spent on fixing up existing systems or building mass transit delivers more jobs, and faster, than building new highways. With their wallets bulging with their federal allowance, the states were allowed to spend $26.6 billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money however they saw fit.
A new study shows that most states didn’t end up making the most of the windfall. The report by the transportation research group Smart Growth America found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges. The result of the indiscriminate spending? States missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs—and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbling. Meanwhile, the states that did put dollars toward public transportation were richly rewarded: Each dollar used on transit was 75 percent more effective at putting people to work than a dollar used for highway work.
The government meant to get the biggest bang for its buck, with “shovel-ready projects.” But building miles of new roads requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Mandel Ngan / Getty Images
The government, of course, meant to get the biggest bang for its buck. The stimulus bill forced states to spend their allocated cash quickly, which was intended to get them to fund maintenance needs—“shovel-ready projects”—that had already been identified. Building miles of new roads, on the other hand, requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Some states did that. Sue Minter, Vermont’s deputy transportation secretary, says a longstanding “fix-it-first” policy for infrastructure and bipartisan collaboration shaped Vermont’s decisions about how to use the funds. The state spent all of its highway money on system maintenance, with a small amount going to mass transit. (Minter, a Democrat, was a member of the state legislature at the time.) “This shot of money into our economy was very, very significant. It’s part of the reason we have a relatively low unemployment rate,” she says. Only 5.8 percent of Vermont residents are out of work, one of the nation’s lowest rates. State research shows that ARRA funding employed 11,000 people—a small number overall, but a significant one in a small state. Minter says the maintenance was important for keeping economic growth, particularly in tourism, strong.
Other states, however, took a different tack. Arkansas used 81 percent of its money for new projects and none on transit; it also has a higher unemployment rate than Vermont. And unlike other states near the bottom of the list, just 38 percent of its roads are in good condition, according to a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade organization.
benchcraft company portland or
benchcraft company scam
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
bench craft company reviews
benchcraft company portland or
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
bench craft company reviews
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
benchcraft company portland or
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
how to lose weight fast bench craft company reviews
bench craft company reviews
benchcraft company scam
bench craft company reviews
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
bench craft company reviews
Insert cliché opening paragraph about the economy and nowadays people are turning to work online, blah, blah, blah. Oh, wait, you're actually reading? Sorry. Well, then, let me say this. Making money online is possible, but, just as everyone will tell you (except for the scammers), don't expect to "get rich" or "get rich quick". You have to put in time, effort, and most of all, work.
Things to Avoid
1. Anything that asks for payment. Never, ever spend your time on these. You will be losing money and making someone else's wallet fat for them without them having to do anything but scam you. I once heard it phrased like this, you don't have to pay for a job interview, do you? It's the same concept here.
2. Paid-to-try/trial offers. Generally, these are a scam. Yes, they will probably look like a pretty profit, but many of them aren't free to try or charge you after a certain trial period and are very hard to get rid of. They cause frustration and money-loss and are NOT worth it.
3. Anything that doesn't tell you what you're doing upfront. This is kind of obvious. If it's shady, it's probably a scam.
4. "Get rich quick"s. You don't get rich quick any time in life unless you win the lottery or something like that. Work is work. Everyone has to earn their money and they don't get rich quick doing it.
Really, just use some common sense and you should be fine.
What I have learned is that a few places, while they don't make much money for me, are slow and steady and reliable. (Other than freelancing, that is. Freelancing is an entirely different set of ideas.)
BeRuby.com
BeRuby is a site that pays you very small amounts when you click on websites through their web-page. Many of the sites I go to every day are there, and many that I don't are also there. (Click on them anyway.) They also pay you for signing up at certain places and cash back for shopping at stores they have deals with, many of which are hotel sites and airline sites and big names, like K-Mart.
It has a $10.00 payout minimum and pays to PayPal. While I don't expect to make much here (I'm not), the extra couple bucks I gain from two minutes of effort and the time I spent on the computer every day is worth it to me. I don't have to change anything up or spend hours filling in stupid surveys.
See here.
Number two: Inbox Dollars
This site sends you emails, which you can open in your inbox or in your inbox on their site. They also offer a variety of ways to otherwise make money, including surveys, trials, signing up for things their advertisers send them, games, shopping, etc.
Their payout is $30.00, which seems like a lot for a paid-to-open site, but like I said, it doesn't happen overnight.
See here.
Number three: SendEarnings
They are, literally, identical to Inbox Dollars. They are even run by the same company. They have the same payout and send you the same emails and offers, so you can really get paid twice for opening the same email, which some might call scamming - except for the fact that they let you sign up under the same name and everything. Their pay-out is also $30.00.
See here.
Number four: Cash Crate
Similar to the above two, Cash Crate has a good reputation, a clean layout, and a $20.00 payout which is relatively easy to reach. They are a similar set-up to the above two: surveys, offers, etc. I personally like Cash Crate the best.
See here.
Number five: ChaCha!
If you don't know what ChaCha is, it is a service run through cellphones and call ins. People send questions to ChaCha and get answers from real-life people - who might be you. And you can also be paid to do this. It's a relatively complex process. You must go through training and pass a test to get hired, which takes a couple of days, but it's worth it if you can research and type quickly.
A note worth mentioning: they only work properly in FireFox.
See here.
It is possible to get paid through online work that isn't freelance writing or starting your own business. Once again, keep in mind to avoid scams, that it won't happen overnight, that you must work at it, and that it is possible.
Good luck.
Sources:
Personal Experience
big seminar 14
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
big seminar 14
Fashion <b>News</b> - Week in Review: Kate Moss Gets Engaged, Gisele <b>...</b>
Here's all the fashion news that's fit to print! Enjoy!
Pitchfork: LCD Soundsystem Announce Farewell NYC Show
Photo by Ruvan Wijesooriya; front page photo by Leigh Ann Hines LCD Soundsystem have announced that they will play their ...
<b>News</b> Corp. 2Q Earnings Double: Will Company Sell MySpace <b>...</b>
News Corp. more than doubled its earnings for the fiscal second quarter, the company announced Wednesday.
big seminar 14
No comments:
Post a Comment