PayPal is a SCAM?
March 31, 2011
I am writing this out of frustration with the PayPal process. If you can avoid it, NEVER use PayPal as your payment processing. They require you to give way too much information to receive payments from customers. And that’s not all.
First of all they charge a processing fee which takes a certain percentage from every transaction. To issue a check they charge another $1.50. It doesn’t seem like a lot but imagine the hundreds of thousands of transactions that are being processed every day and you can see how they afford the phone bank they employ to answer questions from frustrated users like us! But that’s not all!
Even after you verify your bank account to automatically transfer the funds into (to avoid the extra check charge), it takes anywhere from 4-6 business days to move the money. Although they have already received the money from your customer, they make you wait almost a week before you receive your funds. Why would that be?
If you think about it the $450 sits in their account for a week earning interest. Doesn’t sound like much but when you multiply an average of $1000 per transaction times the tens to hundreds of thousands of transactions they must see in a day, it adds up. It’s almost like the govenment’s withholding scam! The take the money from our paychecks and hold it all year. Then we get to beg for it back on April 15th, wait 4-6 weeks for the refund with NO FRIGGIN’ INTEREST!
Look, I am not against people earning a living, but wouldn’t it be just as easy for someone to pay by check? It would be lot less expensive too!
- FedUpEditor
Even when we win we lose
March 23, 2011
My friends, we are living in an alternate universe. Everything seems to be backwards and upside down. Good is defeating bad and yet Conservatives are continually on the losing end regardless of the outcome.
Take a look at Wisconsin. A democratically elected Republican House, Assembly and Governor were hired to balance the state’s budget. Remember that the Democrats left town and hid out in unknown locations in order to stall the vote. But the bill to limit public-sector collective bargaining got passed anyway. After all, the state can’t afford the agreements that have been made. One would think that’s the end of it, right? Conservatism and the people won.
Not so fast. Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order last week saying the Wisconsin legislators did not give appropriate notice of a vote on the bill that affects parts of public sector union’s collective bargaining powers. She didn’t say the bill was “unconstitutional”. She said not enough notice was given about the vote. and that’s why she stopped it. For goodness sakes, I don’t live in Wisconsin and I knew about the vote for over a week. How much time does this liberal judge need anyway? Never mind the fact that this judge has ties to the union; her son is one of the union organizers!
Let me get this straight. So one person with an agenda gets to decide against the people of Wisconsin who voted for the people trying to balance the budget. (Note: she has to run for re-election soon and is supposedly in a very liberal area.)
But wait, it gets worse. Instead of recalling this Judge Sumi or the Democrats who abandoned their jobs and fled the state to avoid debating and voting on the bill, it is the Republicans whose jobs are being threatened with recall. It should become clear to anyone that this is about big money unions bosses trying to keep the bargains in place in order to continue the cash flowing into the coffers. Then that money can be used to help Democrats get elected who will then pass legislation that is favorable to the unions. It’s all very cozy. And after all, there is a lot of money riding on this gamble.
My question is this. Why do Wisconsin Republican legislators have to follow the rules just because one activist judge says they must? Remember, Obama’s drilling moratorium was declared illegal by a Federal Judge, yet it did not stop him from continuing to implement the ban. This has cost the US thousands of jobs and who knows how much in revenue? Then take a look at heath care. Another Federal Judge has declared it unconstitutional, yet Obama’s administration is moving forward on implementing it anyway.
So it’s okay for one county judge to rule on a law and that ruling must be followed, yet federal judges are to be ignored? And they wonder why we are so angry!
The Revolutionary War was declared only after every other avenue had been tried with King George. People in the New World were tired of taxation without representation. Yet isn’t that what we have today? Perhaps instead of a peaceful revolution it will have to come to an armed conflict.
Make no mistake, we are in the fight of our lives. What is happening in Wisconsin is symptomatic of what is going on all over the country. If we lose here, it could very well be the end of the nation. After all, if the states don’t have the money they could easily collapse. If the states fail then the country fails. Union leaders don’t seem to care, but I sure do.
FedUpEditor
Clean Energy – Code Word for Restrictions
March 7, 2011
President Obama didn’t mention carbon constraints in his State of the Union message. Such carbon constraints would force the nation to give up most of the energy that currently keeps us warm and productive. Instead, the President proposed a new “clean energy” program—which would force the nation to give up most of the energy that currently keeps us warm and productive. A study by the Beacon Hill Institute in Boston estimates the President’s “clean energy” proposal might well cost the economy $4 trillion over 20 years, and force huge numbers of U.S. jobs overseas.
Mr. Obama’s “new” proposal is obviously being offered as Plan B, since his cap-and-trade proposal failed in the Congress. He obviously hopes to lure some befuddled House Republican votes to pass it. The President is not “moving to the middle.” Instead he is playing bait-and-switch. Either cap-and-trade or “clean energy” would cause chaos in the American economy. Remember his desperate efforts to pass Obama-care, complete with the payoffs to key Senators? He is rigidly persistent!
Now it gets even worse. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon just announced that he will quit pushing for an international agreement to ban fossil fuels. Guess what now rates as worthy of his efforts instead: a “clean energy initiative”! Ban says this is necessary to reduce climate risks, cut poverty, and improve global health. Does anybody think he means substituting kerosene stoves in Bangladeshi huts to prevent the lung diseases women get from burning wood and dung in open cook-fires?
The left has decided that global warming is no longer an effective rallying cry.
Obama Cuts Border Agents
March 3, 2011
While four terror plots were being uncovered in the last week, our dear president decided we are safe enough and will cut border agents. How’s that hope and change working for you? – FedUpEditor
New Lending Rules Coming Soon
March 3, 2011
Beginning Oct. 1, new rules adopted by the Federal Reserve will go into effect, requiring greater diligence on the part of mortgage lenders and brokers who issue high-cost loans for borrowers with less than favorable credit. The interest rates on these loans are at least 1.5 percentage points greater than the average prime mortgage rate. The regulations, which were finalized in July 2008, prohibit lenders from making a high-cost mortgage without verifying that a borrower could repay the loan in the conventional way, and not through a foreclosure sale.
During the height of the market, subprime lenders often would offer loans without requiring borrowers to provide proof that they could make the monthly payments. In some cases, borrowers used stated income loans, which allowed some borrowers to fabricate annual income figures and buy homes without down payments.
Although many believe the Federal Reserve’s new rules represent one of the more substantial efforts on the part of the federal government to combat such lending practices, some consumer advocates are concerned. According to a policy associate at the Center for Responsible Lending, the new regulations do not cover option ARMs, which enable borrowers to choose from several monthly payment options during the loan’s early years.
To read the full story, please click here.
California Association of Realtors
Hitler Responds to IPad Announcement! – Funny Stuff
March 3, 2011
Open Letter to Arizona and South Carolina!
March 3, 2011
Voters,
The year 2012 is the time to make serious changes to the way business is being done in Washington, DC. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are most of the problem with the Republican Party.
By introducing unconstitutional legislation, McCain and Graham have moved the party to the “center” by compromising with liberals. Time for a change.
JD Hayworth is going to challenge McCain this year. Let’s hope he wins. The reason we know McCain is scared is because he is moving away from positions he took previously, even with his OWN legislation! Amnesty, Stimulus, etc. the list goes on. Once McCain gets re-elected, he will move back to the left and be what he normally is… a RINO!
This is the year for REAL hope and change!
The Only Religion Liberals are NOT Afraid Of! Where’s that separation of church and state we keep hearing about?
March 3, 2011
For Oil Exec, an Electric Car Can Wait
March 3, 2011
New York Times:
There sure is a lot of excitement percolating around plug-in hybrid and electric cars these days. Chevrolet’s Volt and Nissan’s Leaf are the talk of the car world, city governments are installing battery chargers, and the Obama administration has promoted them. Even the TV commercials for the battery chargers are cool.
There are some skeptics, however. And on Thursday I caught up with one of them, William M. Colton, ExxonMobil’s vice president for corporate strategic planning, who is definitely not a fan. A reverse skeptic could say, sure, why would ExxonMobil say nice things about a car that would displace gasoline? That’s certainly true, although Exxon Mobil is getting more and more invested in natural gas, which would indirectly help fuel electric and hybrid cars because it is an important fuel stock for the electric utilities that ultimately charge the car batteries.
For Mr. Colton, the argument against the electric car is purely economic. “One word tells you the whole picture, and its starts with the letter B: batteries are not ready for prime time,” he said, noting that the last time he looked, the battery in the Leaf cost $17,000.
By his calculation, batteries cost $800 to $1,000 per kilowatt-hour, and that has to be reduced to $300 to $500 for electric cars to make sense. And the comparison with the internal combustion engine is a no-brainer, at least for him.
“A conventional car uses only about 100 pounds of gasoline to go 400 miles,” he said. “You go 60 miles an hour, 400 miles. You can run the air conditioner and the radio, and refuel in five minutes. Compare that with a battery, a very heavy and very expensive battery that will only take you 100 miles on a good day and it takes 12 hours or 8 hours to refuel. It’s a very problematic purchase.”
What is needed is a breakthrough in battery technology, he said, but he does not see that happening in the next 10 years at least.
So what alternative does Mr. Colton offer to reduce emissions, especially carbon dioxide, which is linked to climate change?
He says that a lot can be done to improve existing technology in transmissions, engines and electronics to improve the internal combustion engine’s performance. He says hybrids like the Prius will make more sense in the future as technologies improve. And there are other more cost-effective ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, he says.
“When you look at mitigation costs for CO2 in electric vehicles, you are talking about hundreds of dollars per ton of CO2. Its very, very expensive because the batteries are so expensive,” he said. “So we say instead of doing that, if you take natural gas and just displace coal at an electric power plant, you can do it for just $20 a ton. Why wouldn’t you do that first?
Since ExxonMobil is the No. 1 natural gas producer in the country, company shareholders would probably agree with him.
Editor’s Note: So how long before we see all the Prius cars in California being turned in for the Cash for Clunkers program? The only people who want them and can afford electric status symbols are rich liberals.
Volt Gets Chilly Review!
March 3, 2011
Detroit Free Press - The Chevrolet Volt will grace the cover of April’s Consumer Reports, but don’t expect to read another car-of-the-year writeup.
“It seems that owning a Volt is an expensive way to be green,” the magazine says after its first few days with the Volt. In cold weather, battery-only mileage was low enough and the Volt’s electric heater weak enough to make reviewers think twice about whether the Volt is worth its $41,000 suggested starting price tag, less tax credits and plus any dealer markup, such as the $5,000 extra Consumer Reports paid.
The magazine’s team got between 23 and 28 miles in battery-only range because of the cold weather. (General Motors says the Volt can go 25 to 50 miles on its battery.) After that, the gasoline generator got about 30 m.p.g., compared to the Environmental Protection Agency rating of 37 m.p.g.
All in all, Consumer Reports figured the Volt would cost about 5.7 cents per mile to run in battery mode and 10 cents per mile using the gas generator, assuming gas is only $3 a gallon. The magazine says the Toyota Prius hybrid costs 6.8 cents per mile to operate, and a 2011 model costs only about $25,000.
The magazine promised it would still conduct a full road test of the Volt, whose awards have included North American Car of the Year and Motor Trend Car of the Year. It also wrote up a couple-week trial of the Nissan Leaf pure electric car, which it said had a better heater than the Volt. Still, the cold made Consumer Reports’ Leaf average about 65 miles of battery range, compared with the Leaf’s 70-mile EPA rating and the up to 100 miles Nissan says some drivers will get on one charge.
“Our initial take is that the Leaf is a fun urban car that works best as a second or third vehicle in a temperate climate,” the magazine said.
The Leaf does not have a built-in generator like the Volt’s, and its pricing starts at $32,780, less tax credits.
Contact Chrissie Thompson: 313-222-8784 or cthompson@freepress.com
