Amen, we have multiple companies willing to come and provide you with a trash can (your choice of size). Then you can tell them how frequently you want to have said trash can emptied. They take this information and tell you how much you will pay for them to do so. Don't like it, choose another company or just take your own trash to the recycle/trash drop-off spot.
Likewise, if you are so concerned with recycling there are companies you can hire to assist you with this, or take it to said drop-off spot. As an added bonus, you are completely free to purchase a composting bin and/or create a backyard compost pile on your private property.
Truth is, you cannot legislate people to do things they don't want to do. They will just find a way to do what they want, either legally or illegally despite any rules and penalties you may create. If you need an example, see most death penality laws and how it has been super effective (sarcasm) in stopping murder and violent crimes.
I hold the vaccines suspect because I researched the source of these supposed miracle cures. I personally take a great issue with a society that would abort/deny one person life in order to vaccinate/protect someone else from a potential threat. So you are proclaiming the greatness of science and researches ability to shift the death toll from one segment of the population to another, that which is defenseless and cannot speak out against it's mistreatment.
The plan is essentially this. The Federal Government is doing things it is not meant to do, but the States Governments were as per the constitution (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). So let's move those things back to the states, and the cost of the Federal Government will go down.
The part he doesn't mention is that the cost of State Government will go up as it reabsorbs these functions. However, as intended the voters will have more control that way.
Just because the Starz logo comes up in 4:3 does not mean that the rest of the show does. Every film I have watched on Netflix from Starz has been in HD (except when my bandwidth cannot keep up with it temporarily).
* the aggravation of getting your hands on a game a month late only to find everyone else has memorized the maps and hacked their save files to break the multiplayer aspect.
* having to constantly purchase the latest "shooter" or EA Sports title just to find someone to play multiplayer with (because everyone left or EA decided to shut the server down).
* game requires $40 more spent to get all the DLC map packs so you can participate in said multiplayer experience.
* multiplayer experience was bolted onto a game that should only be a single-player experience in an attempt to make money.
Multiplayer can be fun with friends, but generally XBL has not been a fun online experience for me. Either the matches are so loopsided it is painful (and results in people dropping out making the problem worse), I am stuck listening to some teen or college student trying to relive his pre-teen pre-puberty singing career, or people think they should be free to say things that result in an ER trip if said in person.
Apparently you did not watch the video in the article (which isn't a surprise since odds are you didn't read the story). The commercial shows a box store salesperson in a blue polo taking the camera (the customer) to the laptop sales section. The customer asks the simple question, "What's the difference between the two" and the rest of the commercial is watching the salesperson struggle to answer the question. There is absolutely zero mention of Geek Squad, and the word Geek would not be in the commercial except for the tag at the end "Take it from a geek".
Best Buy deserves to get slapped hard for this as it is an abuse of their Trademark. Their Trademark for "Geek Squad" does not give them complete control of the word "Geek" in the commercial world much like a fast food joint can't claim control of "Chicken" just because they sell a "McChicken". It is a common ploy of marketers to make an ad that has people dressed similarly as their competitors to paint them in a poor light, and it is sad that Best Buy feels the need to run to their Legal Team and cry foul. Perhaps if it wasn't so close to the truth they wouldn't be as bothered.
Well, since we are talking about "Freedom of Press" and not "Freedom of Speech" your question doesn't really have much to add to the discussion.
However, the Freedom of the Press here in America is largely an illusion put up by the corporate and political interests in the country. We hear what they want us to hear or what they think will make them money. They paint the picture in a way that helps their side (insisting on calling it a tax cut for the wealthy when what will happen is a tax increase on the rates that have been in place for 10 years).
It is hard to have Freedom of Press and even Freedom of Speech when there are those that constantly attempt to redefine what words mean or just incorrectly use them in an attempt to misdirect, confuse, and mislead.
Guess what, so does eating while driving, changing the radio station, changing clothes, dealing with crying toddler in back of car, and even talking to someone else located in the car. The fact is anything can be a severe distraction to driving.
Poor judgement leads to accidents and not the items being used. And as someone famously said, "You can't fix stupid."
No what he is saying is there is consequences to your choices. Going back to the origin of the process, voting was considered (and should still be) a valuable and precious thing. If you commited a crime that deserves Death or Life Imprisonment, then you lost your voting rights, property, and more in older societies. The US cut this back to voting rights, ability to get certain permits (such as firearms), serving on a jury, running for elected office.
Personally, if someone did such a horrible crime then there should be consequences. If you care so much about voting, then don't murder people, commit armed robbery, or rape. Doing these things should make you an outcast in society. I'll forgive someone that does something like this, but again there should be strong consequences to their extremely horrible choices.
You give Fox News way too much credit. They don't care about elections, they care about ratings. The more eyeballs, the more they can charge for advertising. This is true for any other channel on television.
The sad fact is that news is becoming less about "just the facts", and more about opinion, conjecture, and sensationalism. All the major cable news outlets have been caught with their pants around their ankles because they jumped on a "big story" without properly vetting it. MSNBC peddles just as much drivel as Fox News, yet since it is for the other side places like Media Matters ignores their false statements. CNN tries to take the middle road, but puts you to sleep with their effort.
News is biased because no matter how much you might want to believe otherwise, all people are biased. They are biased by their environment and all the news outlets pretending that is not the case always has been little more than an illusion.
And thus, it is not the President of the United States that really chooses how money is spent, it is Congress. George W. Bush was a fiscal failure not because he spent money like a drunk, but because he was too spineless to stand up to Congress and stop them from spending money like drunks. But then Bush also faced Democratic Majorities in the second half of his Presidency, and they could have put a stop to his spending at any time simply by not funding it. Likewise if he stood up to them, they could have just overturned the vetoes.
During the Clinton years there was something that had not happened in 40 years. The Republicans gained a majority in both the House and Senate. This meant that Clinton got what they suggested he spend, and had the ability to overturn any of the Presidential vetoes that they didn't like.
See, that right there is what makes me very suspicious of these people. Maybe I am just bitter and cynical, but I sure as hell don't remember a time, nor can I find one in any history books, where this country was united by a shared set of principles and values. Attempting to "restore" something that never existed is either naive or disingenuous.
Our country has been united many times, especially during times of adversity. There were disagreements about how best to face those challenges, but the country as a whole stood for the principles of the Constitution.
Life, Liberty, Justice and Freedom are the principles that every American should be able to stand behind and cheer for. We may disagree on how best to meet those principles, but none of us should ever abandon the pursuit of them.
For purpose of speed, I will quote wikipedia, "A budget resolution, which is one form of a concurrent resolution, binds Congress, but is not a law, and so does not require the President's signature."
After that everything requires Appropriation Bills from Congress to fund it unless it is a "Mandatory Program". To again quote wikipedia, "Under the U.S. presidential system, the support of the Congress for his appropriations requests is not necessary for the separately elected President to remain in office, but can severely limit his ability to govern effectively."
Congress (specifically the House of Representativse) hold the purse strings by design. The thought was the representatives closest tied to the people (the senate originally represented the interests of the states) should be the ones to decide how the taxpayer's money would be spent. If the chose poorly, they would quickly get booted out of office.
I still find it funny that people still claim the President has anything to do with the budget other than to propose it. The budget is suggested by the President, but it is Congress that actually decides where the money is spent. The President has no real control over the process once it leaves his desk. So the surplus you are claiming was Clinton's actually belongs to the Congress that was in session then. Likewise, it is Congress that decides if they will actually follow the budget, the President can do nothing but come to Congress and beg.
So Clinton did absolutely nothing to earn the credit he receives for that budget. It was the men and women of the Congress that was in session then that deserves the credit.
Beck told his listeners to not bring signs because that would be the only thing the media would focus on. They would paint the opinion of one or two as the opinion of all instead of listening to what was actually stated on the stage. Not to mention that the entire point of the rally was to be "NOT POLITICAL" in nature. (I know it is an odd idea to ban political signs at a non-political event, but hey lets focus on stuff around the event and not the words spoken at the event.) They were a group of people gathered together to reflect and be reminded of the values and principles that used to unite this country, and wanted to celebrate that fact.
The media and politically motivated people would never understand this. The media only wants to manufacture division and controversy for the purpose of selling ad space. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS (Comedy Central) all are motivated by this goal. If there is nothing controversial then there is nothing to make you want to watch their shows, thus they must make controversy, strife, and division (even where there would be none otherwise) about everything. Politicians likewise only see things in black and white, them vs. us. If it doesn't help the party (either one) then it shouldn't be allowed, otherwise do whatever you want.
So.. the scientists keep trying to convince people who either refuse to accept logic and reason or are too stupid for it, by using more clear science.
This will change the minds of zero people.
The problem is the half-baked climate models that show doomsday scenarios for everyone. Scientists can barely tell what the weather will be like a week from now, but they are accurately predicting the end of the world???
I think things are getting warmer, but I am not convinced it is man made. By their estimates the combined farting of everyone on earth over the past 100 years should have killed us all already, not to mention after the bean burrito became popular.
I do however believe is that we are stewards of what is around us. And as such we have a moral obligation to do our best to take care of it and it's inhabitants.
There is speculation that the civil war was started not because of the slaves(who really cared at this time!!!!), but because the South refused to acknowledge the power of the GOVERNMENT (The North)........and then it became history...
There were many reasons the civil war started, there was an Animaniacs episode that listed them.
Slavery, Power of the States vs Power of the Federal Government, Money, Representation (Large Northern states vs small southern ones) are the ones that come to mind quickly.
Each State supposedly entered into the Federation of United States willingly with the option to leave it if their citizens wanted to, the war was whether or not this would Federally be allowed.
I would just start calling local hospitals and hotels (which also do not have boxes) and ask them what service they use. I believe (at least from my experience staying multiple hotels) that most are using a satellite provider these days. I am sure there is an industrial box that meets the need to have 50-200 rooms hooked up with the ability to watch separate channels.
Because those processes have nothing to do with racial and cultural bias. You are talking about an organization that gave a Nobel Peace Prize to someone that presented inaccurate data (Al Gore) and furthered divided the sides of debate, and someone else that had effectively done nothing other than read a teleprompter well (President Obama) and help further the politicization of his country.
I hope there is a better measuring stick than that.
I think you have convinced yourself that you are "underprivileged" that you have no options. Yes, a phone line with all the bells and whistles will run you $65 or more. However, the phone company (by law I believe) cannot force you to purchase all the additional crap on a phone line. It just takes effort to find that AT&T offers Basic Service for $20 a month. The Federal USF ensures that phone service is not ridiculously priced like you are claiming by providing funding to small telcos. However it does not prevent the Telcos from hiding those options so they can sucker people into the expensive bundle plans.
If you live that close to a county seat then you probably also have the option of getting AT&T Basic DSL for $20/mo. with no phone line required. In fact a Zip search for Searcy, AR shows that service is available if you are not too far from a DSLAM.
Education and research goes a long way no matter what walk of life you come from. Again, I call your claim to expensive internet access the BS it is. I work with locations in cities of all sizes across the south, and the only places I have had issues is where the location is so remote that is unreasonable to expect wires to be run just for one customer. Even there, if we paid for the copper they would provide the service at affordable rates.
So there is no misunderstanding, I don't live in a large city. I do live in a county with a government that was forward thinking enough to have the county owned electric company run fiber and provide the option of very fast, very affordable internet service to all customers.
I live in the Southern US and have Fiber to my door for $30/mo. If what you are claiming is true you are just too lazy to drive to Walmart and pick up a free NetZero CD ($9.95/mo.).
Just because you may live in the backwoods somewhere, where you know that services are going to be less prioritized (or monopolized by a local telco thug) doesn't give you a right to paint the rest of the region as backwards.
Then how does one reasonably save up $100,000 or more to buy a house without a mortgage?
Matress, Shoebox, buy your own safe, bury it, etc. Just because you have cash doesn't mean you must spend it.
checks that they cash at the employers bank
Not all employers are big enough to have a bank.
If they don't have a bank account then they are paying the employees in cash anyways so where is the problem in this? By employer's bank, he means the bank that your employer banks at not that they own a bank. You can also cash checks for a small fee at grocery stores, Wal-Mart, and a few other locations (with Check-Cashing in their names).
Anyway, nowhere in the United States are you required by law to cough up your SSN and DOB to register for a friggen website.
I was required to use my SSN and date of birth to sign up for online repayment of a student loan.
That would be because the loan already has your SSN and DOB recorded. It was just a convenient way to link you to your record. I am sure if you pressed the issue it too could have been worked around.
Society managed for years without credit, and in fact it frowned upon anyone that used credit when it first came around. It is sad that we as a nation have become so dependent upon it.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen, we have multiple companies willing to come and provide you with a trash can (your choice of size). Then you can tell them how frequently you want to have said trash can emptied. They take this information and tell you how much you will pay for them to do so. Don't like it, choose another company or just take your own trash to the recycle/trash drop-off spot.
Likewise, if you are so concerned with recycling there are companies you can hire to assist you with this, or take it to said drop-off spot. As an added bonus, you are completely free to purchase a composting bin and/or create a backyard compost pile on your private property.
Truth is, you cannot legislate people to do things they don't want to do. They will just find a way to do what they want, either legally or illegally despite any rules and penalties you may create. If you need an example, see most death penality laws and how it has been super effective (sarcasm) in stopping murder and violent crimes.
I hold the vaccines suspect because I researched the source of these supposed miracle cures. I personally take a great issue with a society that would abort/deny one person life in order to vaccinate/protect someone else from a potential threat. So you are proclaiming the greatness of science and researches ability to shift the death toll from one segment of the population to another, that which is defenseless and cannot speak out against it's mistreatment.
The plan is essentially this. The Federal Government is doing things it is not meant to do, but the States Governments were as per the constitution (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). So let's move those things back to the states, and the cost of the Federal Government will go down.
The part he doesn't mention is that the cost of State Government will go up as it reabsorbs these functions. However, as intended the voters will have more control that way.
Already there, FCC is advocating them for safety reasons.
Just because the Starz logo comes up in 4:3 does not mean that the rest of the show does. Every film I have watched on Netflix from Starz has been in HD (except when my bandwidth cannot keep up with it temporarily).
Not to mention:
* the aggravation of getting your hands on a game a month late only to find everyone else has memorized the maps and hacked their save files to break the multiplayer aspect.
* having to constantly purchase the latest "shooter" or EA Sports title just to find someone to play multiplayer with (because everyone left or EA decided to shut the server down).
* game requires $40 more spent to get all the DLC map packs so you can participate in said multiplayer experience.
* multiplayer experience was bolted onto a game that should only be a single-player experience in an attempt to make money.
Multiplayer can be fun with friends, but generally XBL has not been a fun online experience for me. Either the matches are so loopsided it is painful (and results in people dropping out making the problem worse), I am stuck listening to some teen or college student trying to relive his pre-teen pre-puberty singing career, or people think they should be free to say things that result in an ER trip if said in person.
Apparently you did not watch the video in the article (which isn't a surprise since odds are you didn't read the story). The commercial shows a box store salesperson in a blue polo taking the camera (the customer) to the laptop sales section. The customer asks the simple question, "What's the difference between the two" and the rest of the commercial is watching the salesperson struggle to answer the question. There is absolutely zero mention of Geek Squad, and the word Geek would not be in the commercial except for the tag at the end "Take it from a geek".
Best Buy deserves to get slapped hard for this as it is an abuse of their Trademark. Their Trademark for "Geek Squad" does not give them complete control of the word "Geek" in the commercial world much like a fast food joint can't claim control of "Chicken" just because they sell a "McChicken". It is a common ploy of marketers to make an ad that has people dressed similarly as their competitors to paint them in a poor light, and it is sad that Best Buy feels the need to run to their Legal Team and cry foul. Perhaps if it wasn't so close to the truth they wouldn't be as bothered.
Some of that is related to their agreement with Starz to get access to Starz On-Demand. These titles expire when Starz On-Demand removes them.
Well, since we are talking about "Freedom of Press" and not "Freedom of Speech" your question doesn't really have much to add to the discussion.
However, the Freedom of the Press here in America is largely an illusion put up by the corporate and political interests in the country. We hear what they want us to hear or what they think will make them money. They paint the picture in a way that helps their side (insisting on calling it a tax cut for the wealthy when what will happen is a tax increase on the rates that have been in place for 10 years).
It is hard to have Freedom of Press and even Freedom of Speech when there are those that constantly attempt to redefine what words mean or just incorrectly use them in an attempt to misdirect, confuse, and mislead.
Guess what, so does eating while driving, changing the radio station, changing clothes, dealing with crying toddler in back of car, and even talking to someone else located in the car. The fact is anything can be a severe distraction to driving.
Poor judgement leads to accidents and not the items being used. And as someone famously said, "You can't fix stupid."
No what he is saying is there is consequences to your choices. Going back to the origin of the process, voting was considered (and should still be) a valuable and precious thing. If you commited a crime that deserves Death or Life Imprisonment, then you lost your voting rights, property, and more in older societies. The US cut this back to voting rights, ability to get certain permits (such as firearms), serving on a jury, running for elected office.
Personally, if someone did such a horrible crime then there should be consequences. If you care so much about voting, then don't murder people, commit armed robbery, or rape. Doing these things should make you an outcast in society. I'll forgive someone that does something like this, but again there should be strong consequences to their extremely horrible choices.
You give Fox News way too much credit. They don't care about elections, they care about ratings. The more eyeballs, the more they can charge for advertising. This is true for any other channel on television.
The sad fact is that news is becoming less about "just the facts", and more about opinion, conjecture, and sensationalism. All the major cable news outlets have been caught with their pants around their ankles because they jumped on a "big story" without properly vetting it. MSNBC peddles just as much drivel as Fox News, yet since it is for the other side places like Media Matters ignores their false statements. CNN tries to take the middle road, but puts you to sleep with their effort.
News is biased because no matter how much you might want to believe otherwise, all people are biased. They are biased by their environment and all the news outlets pretending that is not the case always has been little more than an illusion.
And thus, it is not the President of the United States that really chooses how money is spent, it is Congress. George W. Bush was a fiscal failure not because he spent money like a drunk, but because he was too spineless to stand up to Congress and stop them from spending money like drunks. But then Bush also faced Democratic Majorities in the second half of his Presidency, and they could have put a stop to his spending at any time simply by not funding it. Likewise if he stood up to them, they could have just overturned the vetoes.
During the Clinton years there was something that had not happened in 40 years. The Republicans gained a majority in both the House and Senate. This meant that Clinton got what they suggested he spend, and had the ability to overturn any of the Presidential vetoes that they didn't like.
See, that right there is what makes me very suspicious of these people. Maybe I am just bitter and cynical, but I sure as hell don't remember a time, nor can I find one in any history books, where this country was united by a shared set of principles and values. Attempting to "restore" something that never existed is either naive or disingenuous.
Our country has been united many times, especially during times of adversity. There were disagreements about how best to face those challenges, but the country as a whole stood for the principles of the Constitution.
Life, Liberty, Justice and Freedom are the principles that every American should be able to stand behind and cheer for. We may disagree on how best to meet those principles, but none of us should ever abandon the pursuit of them.
For purpose of speed, I will quote wikipedia, "A budget resolution, which is one form of a concurrent resolution, binds Congress, but is not a law, and so does not require the President's signature."
After that everything requires Appropriation Bills from Congress to fund it unless it is a "Mandatory Program". To again quote wikipedia, "Under the U.S. presidential system, the support of the Congress for his appropriations requests is not necessary for the separately elected President to remain in office, but can severely limit his ability to govern effectively."
Congress (specifically the House of Representativse) hold the purse strings by design. The thought was the representatives closest tied to the people (the senate originally represented the interests of the states) should be the ones to decide how the taxpayer's money would be spent. If the chose poorly, they would quickly get booted out of office.
I still find it funny that people still claim the President has anything to do with the budget other than to propose it. The budget is suggested by the President, but it is Congress that actually decides where the money is spent. The President has no real control over the process once it leaves his desk. So the surplus you are claiming was Clinton's actually belongs to the Congress that was in session then. Likewise, it is Congress that decides if they will actually follow the budget, the President can do nothing but come to Congress and beg.
So Clinton did absolutely nothing to earn the credit he receives for that budget. It was the men and women of the Congress that was in session then that deserves the credit.
Beck told his listeners to not bring signs because that would be the only thing the media would focus on. They would paint the opinion of one or two as the opinion of all instead of listening to what was actually stated on the stage. Not to mention that the entire point of the rally was to be "NOT POLITICAL" in nature. (I know it is an odd idea to ban political signs at a non-political event, but hey lets focus on stuff around the event and not the words spoken at the event.) They were a group of people gathered together to reflect and be reminded of the values and principles that used to unite this country, and wanted to celebrate that fact.
The media and politically motivated people would never understand this. The media only wants to manufacture division and controversy for the purpose of selling ad space. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS (Comedy Central) all are motivated by this goal. If there is nothing controversial then there is nothing to make you want to watch their shows, thus they must make controversy, strife, and division (even where there would be none otherwise) about everything. Politicians likewise only see things in black and white, them vs. us. If it doesn't help the party (either one) then it shouldn't be allowed, otherwise do whatever you want.
So.. the scientists keep trying to convince people who either refuse to accept logic and reason or are too stupid for it, by using more clear science.
This will change the minds of zero people.
The problem is the half-baked climate models that show doomsday scenarios for everyone. Scientists can barely tell what the weather will be like a week from now, but they are accurately predicting the end of the world???
I think things are getting warmer, but I am not convinced it is man made. By their estimates the combined farting of everyone on earth over the past 100 years should have killed us all already, not to mention after the bean burrito became popular.
I do however believe is that we are stewards of what is around us. And as such we have a moral obligation to do our best to take care of it and it's inhabitants.
There is speculation that the civil war was started not because of the slaves(who really cared at this time!!!!), but because the South refused to acknowledge the power of the GOVERNMENT (The North)........and then it became history...
There were many reasons the civil war started, there was an Animaniacs episode that listed them.
Slavery, Power of the States vs Power of the Federal Government, Money, Representation (Large Northern states vs small southern ones) are the ones that come to mind quickly.
Each State supposedly entered into the Federation of United States willingly with the option to leave it if their citizens wanted to, the war was whether or not this would Federally be allowed.
I would just start calling local hospitals and hotels (which also do not have boxes) and ask them what service they use. I believe (at least from my experience staying multiple hotels) that most are using a satellite provider these days. I am sure there is an industrial box that meets the need to have 50-200 rooms hooked up with the ability to watch separate channels.
Because those processes have nothing to do with racial and cultural bias. You are talking about an organization that gave a Nobel Peace Prize to someone that presented inaccurate data (Al Gore) and furthered divided the sides of debate, and someone else that had effectively done nothing other than read a teleprompter well (President Obama) and help further the politicization of his country.
I hope there is a better measuring stick than that.
I don't know, perhaps he could have suspended the Jones act and accepted the offer from the Dutch to provide us with cleanup ships that were offered 3 days after the spill started. http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2010/06/15/obama-refuses-dutch-help-for-gulf-oil-crisis/
Instead the government sat on their collective political butts and pointed fingers trying to score political points for the next election.
I think you have convinced yourself that you are "underprivileged" that you have no options. Yes, a phone line with all the bells and whistles will run you $65 or more. However, the phone company (by law I believe) cannot force you to purchase all the additional crap on a phone line. It just takes effort to find that AT&T offers Basic Service for $20 a month. The Federal USF ensures that phone service is not ridiculously priced like you are claiming by providing funding to small telcos. However it does not prevent the Telcos from hiding those options so they can sucker people into the expensive bundle plans.
If you live that close to a county seat then you probably also have the option of getting AT&T Basic DSL for $20/mo. with no phone line required. In fact a Zip search for Searcy, AR shows that service is available if you are not too far from a DSLAM.
Education and research goes a long way no matter what walk of life you come from. Again, I call your claim to expensive internet access the BS it is. I work with locations in cities of all sizes across the south, and the only places I have had issues is where the location is so remote that is unreasonable to expect wires to be run just for one customer. Even there, if we paid for the copper they would provide the service at affordable rates.
So there is no misunderstanding, I don't live in a large city. I do live in a county with a government that was forward thinking enough to have the county owned electric company run fiber and provide the option of very fast, very affordable internet service to all customers.
I live in the Southern US and have Fiber to my door for $30/mo. If what you are claiming is true you are just too lazy to drive to Walmart and pick up a free NetZero CD ($9.95/mo.).
Just because you may live in the backwoods somewhere, where you know that services are going to be less prioritized (or monopolized by a local telco thug) doesn't give you a right to paint the rest of the region as backwards.
You can live without credit.
Then how does one reasonably save up $100,000 or more to buy a house without a mortgage?
Matress, Shoebox, buy your own safe, bury it, etc. Just because you have cash doesn't mean you must spend it.
checks that they cash at the employers bank
Not all employers are big enough to have a bank.
If they don't have a bank account then they are paying the employees in cash anyways so where is the problem in this? By employer's bank, he means the bank that your employer banks at not that they own a bank. You can also cash checks for a small fee at grocery stores, Wal-Mart, and a few other locations (with Check-Cashing in their names).
Anyway, nowhere in the United States are you required by law to cough up your SSN and DOB to register for a friggen website.
I was required to use my SSN and date of birth to sign up for online repayment of a student loan.
That would be because the loan already has your SSN and DOB recorded. It was just a convenient way to link you to your record. I am sure if you pressed the issue it too could have been worked around.
Society managed for years without credit, and in fact it frowned upon anyone that used credit when it first came around. It is sad that we as a nation have become so dependent upon it.